College Mission Statement of the Day --- University of Santa Monica

We have one university in Santa Monica, namely University of Santa Monica. It's not accredited by the usual bodies, but they are state approved to hand out degrees. They do focus on "soul-centered education". Rather than a mission statement, we've got "A Message from the Directors", here's a portion:

Throughout recorded history, those aware of themselves as travelers upon a spiritual journey have always pondered an essential question: “How can I live a loving, committed, and productive life in this world while being true to my spiritual quest?”

BRIDGING THE SPIRITUAL AND THE PHYSICAL

Since the University of Santa Monica is dedicated to the practical application of universal teachings, we continually use this question as a reference point for the relevancy of our educational process. And no matter how many times we ask this question, we always arrive at the same answer: “I can be true to both aspects of my journey by learning to love my Self unconditionally, by sharing my love in my relationships with others, and by demonstrating excellence and integrity in all my endeavors.”

Thus, the arena of Spiritual Psychology emerges as a common denominator bridging between the spiritual and that aspect of the spiritual we often refer to as the physical world. We are constantly rediscovering that by enhancing and refining our relationship with our Self and others, students, faculty, staff, and volunteers alike experience relevancy, meaning, fellowship, and intimacy. It is this educational process of refining our relationships that results in achieving program competencies.

Got all that? Are you aware of yourself as a traveler? Do we still have some folks in Santa Monica injesting psychotropic drugs recreationally?

If you are wondering what 'soul-centered education' means, here's a sample:

Soul-Centered education recognizes spiritual reality and begins with the assumption that we are not human beings who have a soul; rather, we are souls having a human experience. This evokes a radical paradigm shift that results in a psychological and educational process whose goal is to awaken us to a fuller realization and experience of who we truly are.

Are you a soul having a human experience?

I've passed by this place when folks were milling about outside, and I'll just say that it's mostly exactly the people you'd expect having the kinds of conversations you'd imagine.

If that's a horror or a dream, that's up to you.

Now THAT'S a Friendly . . .

The friendly on Saturday between LA Galaxy and Chelsea wasn't that interesting, but today's "Blue" v "White" scrimmage for USA Basketball was a great show. Kobe hit a 19ft shot over Prince with 6 seconds left bringing the score to 104-103 to cap a "Blue" comeback from 11 back with about 2 minutes left. On the subsequent defensive sequence he forced LeBron into a really bad attempt. Kobe looks motivated, relaxed, and fit, he's going to dominate the upcoming tournament.

Observations:

• Jason Kidd is really, really good when he doesn't need to shoot.
• Kevin Durant is going to do fine in the NBA, even if he doesn't bulk up.
• Kobe Bryant (the new, sleeker, 20lb lighter, Kobe Bryant) is easily the best player in the world right now, he was brilliant tonight.
• Dwight Howard is a monster rebounder.
• Mark Miller will be one of the key players for USA Basketball in the FIBA Americas Championship.

If I were in charge of the whittling down these players into the 12 man roster for the tourney, I'd go with this starting five:

Kobe Bryant, Jason Kidd, Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony and LeBron James (that's a frighteningly good starting five, right there)

Off the bench, Tayshaun Prince, Chauncy Billups, Mike Miller (3pt shooting is crucial in international play), Kevin Durant, Amare Stoudemire, Deron Williams, and Chris Bosh.

That group should be able to rip through the qualifying rounds and handle whatever Brazil or Argentina has to offer in the finals. Should be a fun tournament, it's tempting to move to Las Vegas for the two weeks of the tourney (Aug 22nd-Sept 2), but instead I'll just catch a few matches on TV, that will have to be good enough.

Also, Snapper Jones and Joel Meyers make a great broadcasting team, they should work together more often.

College Mission Statement of the Day --- Loyola Marymount University Los Angeles

Did the tribes yesterday on their holy day, figured I'd do Christians on a Sunday. First up for the followers of Christ I've got a school not far from here, Loyola Marymount University Los Angeles. They're a fine institution, and have a beautiful campus. They go with the short and sweet approach with their mission statement:

At Loyola Marymount University we balance a challenging liberal arts and sciences curriculum with outstanding professional programs at the graduate and undergraduate levels. Students grow to be fulfilled in their own lives and careers while also involved in the communities around them. As a Catholic university, LMU is deeply committed to social justice and ethical values and welcomes to its stunning campus in the heart of Southern California students from all spiritual, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds.

The school itself doesn't run away from its Catholic roots, but it's not a core emphasis, either (I blame the Jesuits, they're practically Buddhists). Their radio station was the best outlet for 'college radio' back when I was in high school in the mid 80s. KXLU was one of the stations that helped define 'college radio' as a genre both locally and nationally (despite having a transmitter that was hard to pick up beyond their own parking lot). Guess I'm being kind of nice to them, can't help it, every time I've visited that campus it's been on beautiful days and the it was full of cheery, happy people, it's just a really nice place. Those Jesuits do know how to create a sense of community and exhibit a real commitment to both intellectual and spiritual growth (those bastards!).

We Find Your Lack of Offense Offensive . . .

A Buddhist has been prevented from calling his restaurant Fat Buddha because some city council bureaucrat is afraid that the phrase "Fat Buddha" might be too provocative.

Have they not seen the many depictions of fat Buddhas throughout history?

Let me see if I can encapsulate the thought process coming from Tracey Ingle, head of the city council of Durham, England's cultural services, I imagine it's something like this . . .

I find your lack of offense at the offensive portrayal of an obese Buddha troublesome. Furthermore, would we allow you to depict the Buddha in such a manner, all references to his weight should be in phrases less provocative and more acceptable to our more sensitive modern mores, "Weight Challenged Buddha" or "Pleasantly Plump Buddha" or "Big Boned Buddha" or "I'm Not Fat I'm Just Hefty Buddha" would have all been acceptable.

However I've been informed by Ivor Biggerse the director for the city of Durham's health services that due to the pernicious influence of too many video games and American TV programmes on our children that we are facing an epidemic of obesity in our area, and as such, any positive depictions of 'jolly' fat people would be counterproductive towards the aim of reducing our growing obesity problem. Surely one of the more austere and ascetic depictions of the Buddha would be more appropriate given current health goals.

Actually I need to rethink that last suggestion as I've been informed by Ima Buttinsky from our city's mental health services that there are also many anorexic people in our city, so any depiction of an ascetic Buddha shouldn't be too thin as some of the afflicted might see these depictions and use them for 'thinspiration'.

Also, I'm afraid that the cultural sensitivities of our Islamic neighbours might come into play with the depiction of a figure of worship. As some within their faith believe in the banning of all images of not only Allah, Mohammed, and other lesser prophets, but of any human whatsoever, it would be best if your restaurant has no images within, or uses any images in their advertising of the Buddha.

Actually, given that all variations and body types of the Buddha really can't satisfy all the differing sensitivities in our fine city, it would be best for everyone if you don't open up your restaurant at all. I realise you are poised to employ 60 people in your restaurant, but what's the potential employment of five dozen souls when weighed against the sensitivities of the entire community? Those jobs simply aren't worth the risk of offending one group or another.

I might have ruled differently had the owner of the restaurant not suggested such a provocative name in the first place, but given that initial provocation, my only recourse is to do what I can to prevent this business for operating for the sake of communal cohesion and peace and to preserve out community's reputation for tolerance, understanding, and reason.

Maybe one day when all prejudices, health problems, and religious issues are resolved in a manner that satisfies all parties, we could sit back and laugh or ignore things like a restaurant named "Fat Buddha", but the age we live in is not a time of laughter, and we musn't contribute to the problem of global insensitivity that plagues all aspects of life. I reject the name of your restaurant so that I may be part of the solution, not the problem, I hope everyone else will see the careful and considered reasoning that went into this decision.

Maybe Eddie Fung should have tried to open up his restaurant in the other, bigger, more laissez-faire Durham, instead.

By Overwhelming Popular Demand, We've Simplified Your Electoral Process

"President" Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is dropping even the pretense of multi-party rule.

He's on his way to becoming a permanent Líder Máximo, just like his hero Fidel.

This might shake a few more people out of their complacency regarding their faux-populist dictator. Resistance isn't futile, but it will be dangerous. Dictators don't give up easily.

Let the purges begin!

Expect some folks to 'disappear' soon.

Hopefully his mischief won't last long and won't spread beyond his own borders.

Stuff like this (pt. 1, 2) doesn't inspire confidence, though.

Sen. Robert Byrd on Michael Vick

Part I

Part II

Part III

(25 Minutes of this!!!)

The voters in West Virginia should be forced to watch every second of his ramblings on the Senate floor as penance for electing this windbag over and over.

If Michael Vick is guilty of what he's accused, he does indeed deserve eternal damnation should he fail to be contrite and understand the evil of his actions and inactions. But, this is not a subject worth 25 minutes of rambling, paper shuffling, crazy old coot ramblings on the Senate floor.

It's strangely compelling to watch, Sen. Byrd in full coot mode, I'd love to see a reality show follow him around as he goes about his business in DC. I think it would be instructive, and maybe help cure voters nationwide of favoring incumbents over and over again.

And let's not forget, that man up there rambling is 4th in line for the Presidency. He's 3 heartbeats from being President (to extend the ' heartbeat' cliche a little farther than normal).

As an added bonus, here's the actual indictment (PDF) of Vick, love the a/k/a for each defendant:

PURNELL A. PEACE,
a/k/a "P-Funk" and "Funk,"

QUANIS L. PHILLIPS,
a/k/a "Q,"

TONY TAYLOR,
a/k/a "T,"

MICHAEL VICK,
a/k/a "Ookie"





(OOKIE!!!)

(got tired of Ron Mexico, I guess)

UPDATE:

Here's a stupid YouTube trick. Play all three at once. Given the lengthy pauses and disjointed nature of his narrative, it makes just as much sense all at once as it would in order. He's elevated rambling old cootism into sophisticated performance art.

Bravo maestro, Bravo.

Lot's of Hype, Not Much Game . . .

The debut of Beckham just ended. He played the last 13+ minutes, had only a few touches, and got tackled in extra time which put a scare into the sold out Home Depot Center. Lucky for the LA Galaxy that Chelsea isn't in the same league, cause they aren't even close to being in the same league.

Chelsea plays at a completely different gear.

The final was 1-0, but it wasn't close, the game was played almost entirely in the Galaxy's end, but for solid goaltending by Cannon and excellent defense by Xavier, Chelsea would have scored 3 or 4 times.

Against another MLS team, they might be good, haven't been paying enough attention to know.

The ESPN coverage covered the 'stars' in the stands more than the game at times, Victoria Beckham was there of course, and she drug Eva Longoria and Katie Holmes (clutching Suri) with her. Kevin Garnett was here, I'll take that as a sign that a deal is getting done to send KG to LA. The Governator took some time off from Governating and brought the wife and kids. Drew Carey was there to actually watch the game, which seemed out of place.

College Mission Statement of the Day --- Brandeis University

It's the Sabbath, so figured I'd go with Brandeis University.

Brandeis University is a community of scholars and students united by their commitment to the pursuit of knowledge and its transmission from generation to generation. As a research university, Brandeis is dedicated to the advancement of the humanities, arts, and social, natural and physical sciences. As a liberal arts college, Brandeis affirms the importance of a broad and critical education in enriching the lives of students and preparing them for full participation in a changing society, capable of promoting their own welfare, yet remaining deeply concerned about the welfare of others.

In a world of challenging social and technological transformations, Brandeis remains a center of open inquiry and teaching, cherishing its independence from any doctrine or government. It strives to reflect the heterogeneity of the United States and of the world community whose ideas and concerns it shares. In the belief that the most important learning derives from the personal encounter and joint work of teacher and students, Brandeis encourages undergraduates and postgraduates to participate with distinguished faculty in research, scholarship and artistic activities.

Brandeis was founded in 1948 as a nonsectarian university under the sponsorship of the American Jewish community to embody its highest ethical and cultural values and to express its gratitude to the United States through the traditional Jewish commitment to education. By being a nonsectarian university that welcomes students, teachers, and staff of every nationality, religion, and political orientation, Brandeis renews the American heritage of cultural diversity, equal access to opportunity, and freedom of expression.

The University that carries the name of the justice who stood for the rights of individuals must be distinguished by academic excellence, by truth pursued wherever it may lead, and by awareness of the power and responsibilities that come with knowledge.

Not a lot to make fun of really, it's overly wordy, full of the usual 'mission statement' boilerplate. I find their commitment to the rhetoric of multi-culturalism interesting. The part about welcoming students and teachers of all nationalities, religions and political orientation is no doubt sincere (OK, maybe I doubt the sincerity about the political orientation bit), but I would hazard a guess that the enrollment of Saudi, Pakistani, or even Indonesian nationals is somewhat low (as in nil).

I could be wrong, I hope I'm wrong, I'm sure they'd be welcome at that campus, too.

That's what's different about those that embrace classical liberalism versus those that cling to primitivism and collectivism in all its most virulent forms (and at the moment militant Islamic supremacist fundamentalist are as viral as a movement gets in every sense of the term).

Checking what programs they have, they do list one lecturer under Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies who is Muslim. He's an Egyptian, Abdel Monem Said Aly. Can't find much on him using google, but this article by him about the aftermath of the Israeli-Hizbollah conflict in Lebanon seems mostly reasonable. For some reason he doesn't mention his connection with Brandeis at his CV page at Al-Ahram Center of Political & Strategic Studies in Cairo where he is Director. Probably a wise omission (also a bit of a sad one).

You Can Throw One Set of Bums Out, But That Only Brings to Fore the Other Set of Bums

(via Instapundit)

Buyers remorse for the 2006 election? According to Zogby (take with a grain of salt, in other words), the Democrat lead Congress is less popular with the 'very liberal' (10%) than they are with 'very conservative' (14%) or 'conservative' (14%)', with 'liberal' (21%) they're doing better, but not exactly great.

Not mentioned by Don Surber in the above linked article is the specific polling on the immigration issue. Congress managed a 3% approval, President Bush enjoys triple the approval rating, a still dismal 9%.

Is this an opportunity to do something in 2008?

Unfortunately, no, people on both sides of the spectrum HATE the Congress as a whole, but folks still tend to love their own personal Congress Critter. Ideally, each incumbent in the House would have a serious, well-financed, web savvy challenger in the primaries. Most districts are gerrymandered to the point where party switching is unlikely. That's why the switch in 2006 to a Democratic majority is impressive, and vulnerable. Most of their gains were in districts designed to favor Republicans, and the Democrats who grabbed seats from Republicans did so by running as moderates. They'll be attacked in 2008 and accused of being with the anti-American San Francisco Liberal Pelosi wing of the Defeat Party. That means trouble for the Democrats in 2008.

Their vocal base, and media enablers are likely to do more damage than help to the Democratic party in 2008. The Dems are dreaming of gaining even more seats, and getting control of both the presidency and strengthening their majority in both houses. But given the polls, that seems unlikely. More likely, the Dems lose the House, the GOP keeps the White House (still don't see which states flip from Red to Blue in 2008 given Obama or Clinton as standard bearer), and the Senate could go either way.

The gnashing of teeth in the press should the GOP regain both majorities and keep the executive branch in 2008 would be highly entertaining.

"Downright Annoyed"

Not the phrase I'd use in the lead to this story;

Merchants, visitors, residents and workers in downtown Oslo are becoming downright annoyed over open drug-dealing and prostitution on several city streets. Some offenders have taken to having sex in a downtown park, just behind the venerable Akershus Fortress and Castle.

Seems like a response a little stronger than 'annoyance' would be appropriate (even the 'downright' variety).

(and no, this isn't becoming the All Norway, All the Time, blog, just a story that caught my eye when reading those other stories I posted)

College Mission Statement of the Day --- Parsons

Art schools, gotta love them (and especially the women who attend them, they were a weakness for me back in my 20s).

Art school mission statements are also lovely. Parsons is one of the best Art Schools in the country, there mission statement is actually something of a disappointment.

Parsons focuses on creating engaged citizens and outstanding artists, designers, scholars and business leaders through a design-based professional and liberal education.

Parsons students learn to rise to the challenges of living, working and creative decision making in a world where human experience is increasingly designed. The school embraces curricular innovation, pioneering uses of technology, collaborative methods and global perspectives on the future of design.

It's straight forward, succinct, and short. What's up with that? I expected a lot more florid prose wrapped around some crazy ideas about what it means to be an artist in the 21st century. This mission statement leaves me wanting.

Guess I'll have to look at individual departments to find the good stuff.

Here's Lighting Design

The MFA program was the first in the field of architectural lighting, and is the only program focused primarily on design and social practice. An interdisciplinary education is offered in the intellectual, aesthetic, and technical aspects of lighting. At the core of the curriculum is the Lighting Design Studio, where students envision form and space "in light." A technology series complements the studio sequence, as well as courses in the cultural, historical, and perceptual components of lighting. A new dual-degree graduate program combines the MFA in Lighting Design and the M.Arch. The Department's journal, Scapes, focuses on global, metropolitan, and departmental perspectives on architecture. In 2007, AIDL sponsored AFTER TASTE a symposium exploring a symposium exploring new agendas for the study of the interior.

I love the typo with the repetition of symposium, unless it really was a symposium exploring a symposium, which is possible, in which case, even better if it wasn't a typo. And an MFA in Lighting Design? Really? It's important, but I can't see studying that as a main focus, seems like something you can knock off in a couple of quarters as part of your more general education in Architecture.

Here's what they say about Photography

Parsons' BFA in Photography and MFA in Photography educate students about the evolving creative position of the photographer today. Both programs provide a rigorous technical training marked by conceptual and critical thinking about photography's place in the global art and design world. Graduates enter the photographic industry fully prepared to be leaders in a rapidly changing work environment.

What they meant to say, 'you will rule at making photoshopped Bu$hHitler composites for TNR or Salon once we are done with you'.

I could dig around more, but I'll leave the fun of discovery up to you, I can't do all the work, I can only point the way.

If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can't We . . .

I don't quite understand what one has to do with the other. But seems like those that want the government to do everything and anything, that's a frequent catch phrase, "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we . . .".

The first part should be enough.

WE PUT A MAN ON THE MOON!!!

(38 years ago)

And even though I wasn't even a month old, my mother swears I watched intently as it happened.

So to all those folks who use that as a beginning of a conditional phrase, or all those people who believe it was on a soundstage.

Screw YOU!

We put a man on the moon, and that's still pretty amazing, even more amazing still when you consider what technology was like in 1969.

We (and in this case, the 'we' shouldn't just be NASA, but private organizations and a coalition of USA, EU and Japanese backed concerns) should put lots a people on the moon before it has been 50 years since Neil Armstrong made his first steps.

By 2019 I'd hope a proper research station would be possible.

As a destination in of itself there may not be much there (potentially a great tourist trap, eventually), but as a proving ground for extended low-g living and finding the adjustments needed to live long term places other than Earth, it's a needed first step.

A dozen men having trundled on the lunar surface is too few, let's get that number up by 2020.

Also, I think they had a bit more fun on Apollo 12. Check out the PDF of the cuff check list (especially page 6 and page 11).

Those dozen should get a name check today, so here are links to each of their wikis.

Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11)
Buzz Aldrin (Apollo 11)
Charles Conrad (Apollo 12)
Alan Bean (Apollo 12)
Alan Shepard (Apollo 14)
Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14)
James Irwin (Apollo 15)
David Scott (Apollo 15)
Charles Duke (Apollo 16)
John Young (Apollo 16)
Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17)
Eugene Cernan (Apollo 17)

Someday this list will be too big to fit easily in a single post, but for now, those are the twelve men that should be remembered today (and if you forgot why Apollo 13 is missing, rent this).

Punitive Communitarianism

After reading this article in Aftenposten, a Norwegian English language daily, I think I've come up with a new take on an old idea.

The thing going on in that fine Nordic country can only be described as punitive communitarianism. You're going to love your fellow man, even if it kills you. It's hard to measure comparative tax burdens, but I think an interesting measure is to look at what the government revenues are on a per capita basis, and by percentage of GDP.

When measured that way, the story in Norway is mindboggling.

Norway's a small country population wise, a wealthy one too. According to an article last week on the same website, they have the most 'dollar millionaires' per capita of any nation. Their per capita income is slightly better than $46,000 per year, putting them sixth on the per capita income list as ranked in The World Factbook.

For the sake of comparison let's look at the top nine (plus two other countries/dependencies) as ranked by the CIA.

#1 on the list is tiny Luxemborg. Population, 480,222, population growth rate of 1.207%, GDP (purchasing power parity) $33.87B, and a per capita of a whopping $71,400. Government revenues are 19.07B. That translates to 56.3% of GDP, and a per capita rate of government revenue rounded to about $39,700.

#2 on the list is Bermuda. The shorts business must be booming, that or lots of European tax exiles distorting the figures. Also, not fully independent of the UK. Population 66,163, population growth rate of .576%, GDP(ppp) $4.5B, per capita $69,900. The government revenue collected is a relatively minuscule $738M. That's only 16.4% of GDP, and a per capita govt revenue around $11,200 per shorts wearing Bermudan.

#3 on the list is Jersey. Another island dependency of the UK high on this list. Population 91,321, pop growth .244%, GDP(ppp) $5.1B, per capita $57,000. Gov't revenue only $829M. 16.3% of GDP in gov't revenue, which figures to a per cow/person basis around $9,000.

#4 on the list is Equatorial Guinea. An oil rich African military dictatorship that despite great wealth suffers from 30% unemployment and yet is still a destination country for the trafficking of children for labor and women and children for sex work, not exactly a tropical paradise. It's a poster child for how great natural wealth in a country doesn't equal prosperity, but the numbers look great on paper. Population 551,201, growth rate 2.015%, GDP(ppp) 25.69B, per capita $50,200. Gov't revenue 2.752B. 10.7% of GDP in gov't revenue, around $5000 per capita.

#5 on the list is United Arab Emirates. An oil rich Arab country on the Persian Gulf. Pop 4,444,011. Growth a very frisky 3.997%, GDP(ppp) $129.5B, per capita $49,700. Gov't rev is $60.3B, which gives them 46.6% gov't rev. as share of GDP, and shakes out to $13,600 per sheik.

#6 on the list is Norway. The poster child for a communitarian social welfare cradle to grave managed market paradise. Don't let the whiners in the article linked above scare you away with their tales of $9/gallon gasoline, or 2.5% tax on all real estate transactions. Instead revel in the numbers. Pop 4,627,926, growth rate a reserved .363%, GDP(ppp) $213.6B, per capita $46,300. Govt rev $195.8B, which only somebody who doesn't love their fellow man would complain about it's 91.7% share of GDP, or its per capita burden around $42,300 per Norwegian not pining for the fjords (no need to pine when the fjords are a short drive away, or maybe you might pine a little when you realize how much the petrol bill will run should you choose to drive to said fjords when all those gas taxes cause the cost of a gallon to be northward of $9).

#7 on the list is Guernsey cause the one thing you can't get enough on this list is UK dependencies. Another English Channel Island with a really high per capita income rate. Pop 65,573, growth .239%, GDP(ppp) $2.742B, per capita $44,600, gov't rev 563.6M. Comes out to a modest 20.6% and only $8,600 per Guernsey cow/person.

#8 on the list is Ireland. Yes, Ireland, the Emerald Isle, is now the surprisingly rich Emerald Isle. Pop 4,109,086 (isn't there more Irish than that in Massachusetts?), pop growth a healthy for Europe 1.143%, GDP(ppp) $180.7B per capita $44,500 (that's a lot of potatos), gov't revenue a reasonable (for an EU nation) $75.49B. That's a percentage of 41.8% and a per step dancer rate of $18,400.

#9 on the list is the greatest country in the history of the whole universe. That's right, it's the U S of A. Love it or leave it, as they say. Pop 301,139,947, pop growth .894%, GDP(ppp) a mind boggling $13.13 Trillion, per capita at an impressive $44,000. Government revenue is an obscene $2.409T (I bet we could get by with only $2T). Despite the government revenues seeming crazy, it's just 18.3% of GDP, and around $8000 per person.

Now let's look at the two places most similar to Norway in population for comparison

Georgia has 4,646,003, pop growth is -.329%, GDP(ppp) 17.88B, per capita income a paltry $3,800 (might help explain the negative growth rate), gov't revenue is $1.726B. That's only 9.7%, and only $372 per person. That's about as far away from Norway as you can get.

Singapore has 4,553,009 folks, pop growth 1.275%, GDP(ppp) 141.2B, per capita a solid $31,400. Gov't revenue is a restrained $19.71B. That's a rather unburdened 14% and a manageable $4300 per Singaporean.

I'm sure there's a reason that economists don't look at that number, or calculate government revenues as a percentage of GDP. Gov't revenue comes from many sources, and countries with lots of nationalized industries would have their results skewed (like Norway). But I think it gives you a sliver of a picture of the type of society a country has developed. Norway's punitive communitarianism is only sustainable so long as the government controls some natural resource that brings in solid revenues (in their case, oil). It's certainly better that they use that revenue on their people when compared to a country like Equatorial Guinea where all that oil wealth is just going to the few. But just looking at the numbers, Ireland would seem like a much better place to work and do business in Europe (and companies and people have been drawn there because of their low taxes, and still decent services), United States despite its huge economy manages to get by on a relatively small tax burden for a mature economy. Also, Singapore really does kick a lot of ass when it comes to economic freedom and pro-growth policies, too bad about the authoritarian streak when it comes to everything else.

Seems like Norway's way isn't as appealing as it once was for Norwegians, and that kind of punitive taxation must scare away any sort of business that isn't looking to work within the public or government controlled sector. That's not an environment that encourages innovation or problem solving skills. Looking at the top nine places in terms of GDP, Norway, Equatorial Guinea, and United Arab Emirates would collapse if oil prices dropped back down below $30 a barrel (not likely anytime soon barring a new technology drastically changing energy production and usage). Norway's screwed if that happens, they just don't realize it. Economic activity alone can't support the massive revenues their government demands. At least the folks in Norway are starting to question the point of tacking on punitive fees for every activity that people might engage in. And not surprisingly, all the various communitarian oriented NGOs and UN commissions think every place should be like Norway and Norway ranks highly in their rankings.

One last article from Aftenposten, if you want a good example of what happens when you put crazily punitive taxes on everything, two words for you, MEAT SMUGGLING.

(quit that snickering in the back, what's so funny about the phrase, 'meat smuggling'?)

College Mission Statement of the Day --- Pitzer College

You know what are fun? College mission statements. They're usually utter drivel. Not only are they drivel, they're self-important drivel that string together a bunch of touchy-feely buzzwords to absolutely no effect. In other words, the perfect target for ridicule.

I can't resist the ridiculous. I'm shallow that way. To kick this feature off, I'm not going after the worst, Pitzer College's mission statement is definitely middle of the pack as far as ridiculousness goes, but it's representative, and therefore a good starting point.

Pitzer College produces engaged, socially responsible citizens of the world through an academically rigorous, interdisciplinary liberal arts education emphasizing social justice, intercultural understanding and environmental sensitivity. The meaningful participation of students, faculty and staff in college governance and academic program design is a Pitzer core value. Our community thrives within the mutually supportive framework of the Claremont Colleges which provide an unsurpassed breadth of academic, athletic and social opportunities.

If I were to develop a checklist of things that are likely to show up in every "Mission Statement" I feature, I couldn't do a better job of 'buzzword bingo' than the above paragraph.

Socially responsible, yada yada yada, social justice, yada yada yada, environmental sensitivity, yada yada yada, community, yada, supportive, yada, unsurpassed breadth of academic, athletic and social opportunities. (I can't believe they left off 'diversity', you always got to tout, 'diversity', there's nothing more important than being, 'diverse', suppose they think that's implied by 'social justice')

The formula will vary some, but those are the bullet points. Course, the kiddies that attend these schools aren't looking for any of those things. They want to know, how easy will the grading be? Will going here help me get into a good grad school? Do hot (and easy) people go here? What's the drinking scene like? How far is it from dorm to classes? What's the meal plan like? If the kids going here aren't really, really hot, are they at least really, really easy? If I download and upload tons of songs and porn, will the administration bust me? Do they have wi-fi everywhere? What's the celphone reception like? Are there any hot teachers? Are the dorm bathrooms gross, really gross, or I'm better off at a truck stop gross?

For some reason none of those questions seem to get addressed in mission statements.

Oh well.

A Dangerous Assumption

This Rand study (pdf at link) suggests that older drivers need not be regulated more strictly as they voluntarily limit their behaviors as they get older, and even though they are far less capable as they get older, they don't present a much bigger risk to the general public to justify an increased regulatory regime aimed at getting those whose skills are inadequate off the roads.

The huge problem I see with this study, is that they make a basic assumption regarding old people that's dangerously false. Their basic assumption is that the people who turn 70 and 80 in the future will act and react to their aging process the same way as past and current 70 and 80 year olds did. I'm here to wave my hands, yell and scream and say, HELL NO.

In ten years the leading edge of the Boomer wave will be hitting 70. At every stop along the way they've trumpeted how 'different' they are from all other generations in their approach to aging. As the oldest of these folks are hitting 60, we're bombarded with articles about how Sixty=Sexy, and all that other nonsense. That's going to continue as long as they're around, and their Boomer narcissism won't recede with age, if anything they've shown a capacity to get increasingly narcissistic with each passing decade, and I don't expect them (as a cohort, individual boomers can be quite nice, but as a whole, they remain the ME generation) to be any different in their 70s, 80s, 90s or beyond.

Boomers will not voluntarily limit their behaviors or accept their diminished skillsets. I predict they will in far larger numbers than today's older elderly (75+) continue to drive, continue to work, and continue to think they aren't worse off than they were then when they were in their 40s.

You can create a set of driving regulations that ignore age all together, but require that all drivers be physically and mentally sharp enough to avoid collisions and react sensibly when an accident occurs.

To acknowledge that people fall apart as they get older isn't to discriminate against the elderly. It's to discriminate against the unfit, and that's the kind of discrimination I can whole heartedly back. Any oldster who wants to drive, should welcome the chance to prove it in a driving test that mixes on the road testing with a simulator that tests their reactions to emergency situations. Increase the licensing fees on driving (it is a privilege, not a right, especially as you get older) to pay for the increased testing, require driving road tests more frequently past the age of 65 (every other year until 75, then every single year once you past the age of 75). Also, require re-testing of driving skills within 6 months of any major emergency hospitalization that involves loss of consciousness, regardless of the person's age. It's about possible impairment and the danger that presents to everyone, not hating on old folks.

Just cause oldsters are acting semi-responsibly now, doesn't mean the next group of oldsters will continue to be so wise. If past performance is any indication of future returns, we can expect that the next wave of oldsters will most definitely not accept the fact of their decline and refuse to self-impose limits on their mobility.

Barring that, force old people into tiny electric vehicles, they mostly drive alone or in pairs, generally don't carry a lot of stuff, and don't travel more than 15 miles from home. So anybody over the age 75 of will be treated like anybody else, except their license will only be good for a GEM or GEM like vehicle (or at least no vehicles with a curb weight over 2000lbs). Do it for the environment's sake, I bet I could get the Goracle behind this if I sell it on that angle.

If a person over the age of 75 wants a license to drive a normal car, than they should be required to pass a more thorough test at their own expense, and agree to go through this process each year. That way, if they momentarily suffer from pedal confusion, they won't wipe out a whole Farmer's Market.

I'm normally against nannyism, but I don't see this as nannyism, I see this as common sense. Cars are too big, too powerful, and too easy to drive, someone not capable of reacting to a difficult situation as it presents itself shouldn't be driving. Old people get frail, that's life, and sometimes they get very frail, very quickly, that's why they need to be tested more often. Those that can handle the stress should be allowed to continue to assume the risk of driving, but as a group, old people should be scrutinized.

That young people drive more dangerously than they should doesn't excuse old people from being regulated more closely in light of their declining abilities. That's the argument the Rand study would seem to make, 'it's OK for the old to suck, cause kids suck worse', that's not an argument I'd make, and I find it strange that Rand would do so.