Health Care Reform news from Huffington Post earlier this week makes me wonder....
"Mike Enzi, one of three Republicans ostensibly negotiating health care reform as part of the Senate's "Gang of Six,*" told a Wyoming town hall crowd that he had no plans to compromise with Democrats and was merely trying to extract concessions."
Enzi is Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) and also serves on the Committee on Finance , the Committee on Budget, and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Senator Edward Kennedy (deceased) was Chair of the Committee.
Looking at Enzi's Senate page, with a lead article this week on how it is not in the Democrat's best interests to shut out Republicans and moderate Democrats, one would think Enzi is interested in actually working towards compromise.
"U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., today said that if the White House and Democrat leadership in the Senate choose to shut Republicans and moderate Democrats out of the health care debate, their health care plan would fail."
So what part of compromise does Enzi not understand? Compromise, often defined as mutual concessions, can be a bit more than that. Compromise can be brought about by reflection/examination of one's initial viewpoint, research on claims by each side, and subsequent adjustment of what one perceived as the barriers to agreement. It's good compromise if it means one does not give up one's principles in the process. Just giving in is not compromise, it's giving up.
The Finance Committee is reviewing health care reform to supposedly see where it can move the bill forward. That requires some compromise by both sides. Enzi, however, isn't interested in compromise.
The American public has been voicing its opinion, loudly and clearly, that there are certain points they don't want to compromise on. Are legislators listening?
A few members of Congress, and a lot of other people, have spent too much time distorting the content of the bill. Now, powerful members of Congress who know those are distortions don't even bother to correct them. They prefer that Americans believe the distortions so these legislators can look as if they serve them. What would serve the American public better than the bare truth on what is in the bill and what is not?
Give the public some credit. If legislators' concern is over a cost/benefit analysis, help us destroy the myths and distortions, get the truth out, and then engage in a real conversation with constituents over what they want.
Oh, and as far as serving the American public, see the paragraph below on the Gang of Six...
* The "Gang of Six" is a group of 3 Republican and 3 Democratic Senators on the Senate Committee on Finance that wants to slow down the process of health care reform in the name of better studying the costs and benefits. Collectively, the Gang of Six represents about 2.6 percent of the American public, yet are significantly delaying legislation that affects almost all Americans at some point. See Robert Reich's blog post, Why the Gang of Six is Deciding Health Care for Three Hundred Million of Us. Members are Senators Max Barkus (D-MO), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Charles Grassley (R-IA and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee),and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Health Care Reform: One Argumentt -- Two Sets of Rules
Don't you just hate it when you are trying to understand an issue and someone comes along and starts talking about it -- but they're not really talking about it? Instead, they're injecting a different topic into the conversation disguised as a position on the original topic? It's like changing the rules in the middle of a game without telling the opponent. The purpose, of course, is to derail the original discussion and get people talking about something else and never have to deal with the guts of the original.
The discussion was about health care reform. Now Republican leaders are attempting to derail the conversation by introducing a senior health care bill of rights. Republicans supposedly put this forward to ease seniors' concerns over health care "rationing" and cost-cutting under Medicare. Now I wonder where that idea came from?
"Under the Democrats' plan, senior citizens will pay a steeper price and will have their treatment options reduced or rationed," according to Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, in an op-ed in Monday's Washington Post (subscription required to view most articles). This is the same Michael Steele who, in 2006, called for cuts to Medicare to control runaway costs. How convenient that the GOP has an answer ready to assuage seniors' fears, making a radical shift in position from 3 years ago. How ironic that this "ready answer" deals with a concern that they created!
In 2006, Steele felt that the way to reduce Medicare costs was to cut benefits to seniors. In the current health care reform bill, H.R. 3200, Medicare costs are reduced by reduction of payments to providers. Everyone seems to complain about runaway health care costs, but when there is a plan on the table to curb those rising costs while maintaining a level of coverage for vulnerable seniors, the Republication option is to derail the conversation.
And that moves the discussion away from real health care reform.
The discussion was about health care reform. Now Republican leaders are attempting to derail the conversation by introducing a senior health care bill of rights. Republicans supposedly put this forward to ease seniors' concerns over health care "rationing" and cost-cutting under Medicare. Now I wonder where that idea came from?
"Under the Democrats' plan, senior citizens will pay a steeper price and will have their treatment options reduced or rationed," according to Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, in an op-ed in Monday's Washington Post (subscription required to view most articles). This is the same Michael Steele who, in 2006, called for cuts to Medicare to control runaway costs. How convenient that the GOP has an answer ready to assuage seniors' fears, making a radical shift in position from 3 years ago. How ironic that this "ready answer" deals with a concern that they created!
In 2006, Steele felt that the way to reduce Medicare costs was to cut benefits to seniors. In the current health care reform bill, H.R. 3200, Medicare costs are reduced by reduction of payments to providers. Everyone seems to complain about runaway health care costs, but when there is a plan on the table to curb those rising costs while maintaining a level of coverage for vulnerable seniors, the Republication option is to derail the conversation.
And that moves the discussion away from real health care reform.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
More Immigrants Than Non-Immigrants are Uninsured
A memorandum by the Center for Immigration Studies finds that more immigrants than non-immigrants are uninsured. This would seem to contradict my post of yesterday that immigration is good for the economy, since providing medical care for uninsured residents tends to drive up medical costs for everyone else.
I'm looking at it a bit differently though. Many businesses that need low-skilled workers rely on immigrants to do these jobs. When there are fewer immigrants, the jobs go unfilled. Sometimes it's because citizens won't take those jobs. Immigrants tend to stick to these jobs to bring money home for the family while Americans will quit and go elsewhere to try to earn more.
But low-paying jobs mean people cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums. Oh, here's an idea! Why not develop a health care system that will provide low-cost premiums for people in low-paying jobs; get insurers to come down a bit in their premiums and partly subsidize the plan so the insured pays what they can afford. It will certainly cost less to subsidize premiums a bit, helping keep people healthy, than to pay the full cost of emergency care for serious illness brought on by lack of access to preventive health care. And this plan gets the insurance providers to share the burden.
Oh, wait -- that's what the current health care reform is all about!
Instead of seeing health care reform as government intrusion, let's look at it as another choice being put into the mix. Along with current insurance options and insurers, there would be an additional option for people who have low-paying jobs or may be long-term unemployed. Let insurers bear part of the burden, the government bear part of the burden, and the individual and company s/he works for bear part of the burden.
Small businesses could opt for a subsidized plan that covers their employees but is affordable for both the business and the individual. Why is that so threatening? Wouldn't it cost less, in the long run, to keep people healthy through preventive health care? Wouldn't business owners rather be able to say, "yes, we're small but we can provide basic health insurance."?
The current health care system has a lot of problems; rising costs -- skyrocketing costs -- among them. We need to work on containing those costs. Let's acknowledge first that among the reasons for those costs are several factors that don't improve health care (rewarding physicians for unnecessary medical procedures comes to mind) and a number of factors that are directly related to good health care or illness (research into diseases and treatments, covering medical costs for the uninsured, unhealthy lifestyles, etc.).
We need a health care system that provides preventive health care for all, shares the cost-burden among all the players as much as possible, provides incentives for good health care, eliminates excesses where they don't improve health care, and reduces costs by helping create a healthier society.
I don't know that any reform plan out there does all that. But I do believe that current reform efforts are a step in the right direction. If we move in the current reform direction, I believe we can help immigrants get health insurance, get better preventive health care, and reverse those numbers derived by the Center. And that would be good medicine in my book.
I'm looking at it a bit differently though. Many businesses that need low-skilled workers rely on immigrants to do these jobs. When there are fewer immigrants, the jobs go unfilled. Sometimes it's because citizens won't take those jobs. Immigrants tend to stick to these jobs to bring money home for the family while Americans will quit and go elsewhere to try to earn more.
But low-paying jobs mean people cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums. Oh, here's an idea! Why not develop a health care system that will provide low-cost premiums for people in low-paying jobs; get insurers to come down a bit in their premiums and partly subsidize the plan so the insured pays what they can afford. It will certainly cost less to subsidize premiums a bit, helping keep people healthy, than to pay the full cost of emergency care for serious illness brought on by lack of access to preventive health care. And this plan gets the insurance providers to share the burden.
Oh, wait -- that's what the current health care reform is all about!
Instead of seeing health care reform as government intrusion, let's look at it as another choice being put into the mix. Along with current insurance options and insurers, there would be an additional option for people who have low-paying jobs or may be long-term unemployed. Let insurers bear part of the burden, the government bear part of the burden, and the individual and company s/he works for bear part of the burden.
Small businesses could opt for a subsidized plan that covers their employees but is affordable for both the business and the individual. Why is that so threatening? Wouldn't it cost less, in the long run, to keep people healthy through preventive health care? Wouldn't business owners rather be able to say, "yes, we're small but we can provide basic health insurance."?
The current health care system has a lot of problems; rising costs -- skyrocketing costs -- among them. We need to work on containing those costs. Let's acknowledge first that among the reasons for those costs are several factors that don't improve health care (rewarding physicians for unnecessary medical procedures comes to mind) and a number of factors that are directly related to good health care or illness (research into diseases and treatments, covering medical costs for the uninsured, unhealthy lifestyles, etc.).
We need a health care system that provides preventive health care for all, shares the cost-burden among all the players as much as possible, provides incentives for good health care, eliminates excesses where they don't improve health care, and reduces costs by helping create a healthier society.
I don't know that any reform plan out there does all that. But I do believe that current reform efforts are a step in the right direction. If we move in the current reform direction, I believe we can help immigrants get health insurance, get better preventive health care, and reverse those numbers derived by the Center. And that would be good medicine in my book.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Immigration Reform Heats Up
I listened this morning to Power Breakfast from Capitol News Connection, a 2-minute briefing on a hot topic of the coming day on Capitol Hill. This Power Breakfast, by CNC Senior Correspondent Elizabeth Wynne Johnson, focused on two topics , Immigration Reform and Government Transparency. I want to focus on Immigration Reform this morning.
Immigration Reform
Legalization of America's low-skilled illegal workers (undocumented immigrants) could deliver $180B benefit to US households, according to a study released this week by the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute is a "pro-free market, libertarian think tank" in Washington DC, according to this page in wikipedia.
Their study reveals that legalization of these low-skilled workers would benefit the US economy and the immigrants. It would also reduce or eliminate many of the negative elements associated with illegal immigration: smugglers' fees, low productivity, unfilled entry-level jobs, etc.
Tighter restrictions on undocumented workers already in the US would end up costing the US economy. While restrictions may show initial costs savings, these would be offset by lower economic output and fewer job opportunities for skilled workers.
In dollars and cents:
- Tighter restrictions. reducing the number of low-skilled immigrant workers by 28.6, would show a temporary gain of 0.5 percent, or $80B. This figure was reached by projecting a reduction of US household welfare.
- Legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers could show a gain of $180B.
One conclusion from the study:
Reduced Immigration Causes Drops in Investment, Output, and Consumption
Immigration Reform
Legalization of America's low-skilled illegal workers (undocumented immigrants) could deliver $180B benefit to US households, according to a study released this week by the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute is a "pro-free market, libertarian think tank" in Washington DC, according to this page in wikipedia.
Their study reveals that legalization of these low-skilled workers would benefit the US economy and the immigrants. It would also reduce or eliminate many of the negative elements associated with illegal immigration: smugglers' fees, low productivity, unfilled entry-level jobs, etc.
Tighter restrictions on undocumented workers already in the US would end up costing the US economy. While restrictions may show initial costs savings, these would be offset by lower economic output and fewer job opportunities for skilled workers.
In dollars and cents:
- Tighter restrictions. reducing the number of low-skilled immigrant workers by 28.6, would show a temporary gain of 0.5 percent, or $80B. This figure was reached by projecting a reduction of US household welfare.
- Legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers could show a gain of $180B.
One conclusion from the study:
Reduced Immigration Causes Drops in Investment, Output, and Consumption
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Sarah Palin -- "a flaky, intellectual lightweight "
Paul Begala thinks that Newt Gringich's advice to Sarah Palin, while good advice, is wasted on Palin because she's not in the same league as Gringrich and "almost anybody in the Republican party." I think he's correct. The best description I've read on this comes from "blak n lovingamerica," in one of the responses to the HuffPost blog.
"If we would only discuss Sarah Palin when she does something, or says something containing real substance, she would go away. People on the left should realize that Palin is a prop used by the right to get a rise out of the left. By attacking her intellegence (sic), or perceived lack thereof, it energizes their base and gives them a reason to be gratuitously mad and fight anything noble the left initiates. Palin is a small pawn that moves like a queen in a large right wing chess game. The sooner folks realize that, the sooner she'll be neutralized. Why do you think the right insists that libs are "scared of Sarah Palin?" They know it will create a strong response and some of those responses will be hateful and perpetuate the cycle."
My new term for Palin is Sensationalist Sarah. She goes for the headlines but has no substance. That's not a problem for her, however, since she can just make it up or rely on what has been made up by others. Sometimes there's a grain of truth in there somewhere, but it gets distorted, blown out of proportion, or just plain exaggerated to make headlines.
That's Sarah's job today. As "blak n lovingamerica" states so well she is the Republican Party's pawn in a game of political chess. Another term that describes her role is jester.
However, the traditional role of the Jester, as used in literature, was also to give counsel to the monarch. Only the Jester could get away with giving advice that was contrary to the monarch's already-stated desires. The Jester had the cover of being a fool to hide behind.
Is Sarah Palin hiding behind "the cover of being a fool" or is she a fool? You decide.
"If we would only discuss Sarah Palin when she does something, or says something containing real substance, she would go away. People on the left should realize that Palin is a prop used by the right to get a rise out of the left. By attacking her intellegence (sic), or perceived lack thereof, it energizes their base and gives them a reason to be gratuitously mad and fight anything noble the left initiates. Palin is a small pawn that moves like a queen in a large right wing chess game. The sooner folks realize that, the sooner she'll be neutralized. Why do you think the right insists that libs are "scared of Sarah Palin?" They know it will create a strong response and some of those responses will be hateful and perpetuate the cycle."
My new term for Palin is Sensationalist Sarah. She goes for the headlines but has no substance. That's not a problem for her, however, since she can just make it up or rely on what has been made up by others. Sometimes there's a grain of truth in there somewhere, but it gets distorted, blown out of proportion, or just plain exaggerated to make headlines.
That's Sarah's job today. As "blak n lovingamerica" states so well she is the Republican Party's pawn in a game of political chess. Another term that describes her role is jester.
However, the traditional role of the Jester, as used in literature, was also to give counsel to the monarch. Only the Jester could get away with giving advice that was contrary to the monarch's already-stated desires. The Jester had the cover of being a fool to hide behind.
Is Sarah Palin hiding behind "the cover of being a fool" or is she a fool? You decide.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Who is Behind Health Care Misinformation?
I don't know whether these folks oppose health insurance reform due to true conscience -- and huge change of heart about government intrusion into our lives -- or if they are playing the same old, "I lost at my turn, so now I'll cheat and make sure you lose at your turn."
Either way, some of the champions behind spreading myth and misinformation are the same people who felt that Congress should step in and take over the life-or-death decision regardng Terry Schaivo about 4 years ago.
From the Huffington Post...
"Some of the same conservative figures taking potshots at Democrats for wanting to fund voluntary discussions about end-of-life decisions between doctors and their patients were leading the charge four years ago to contravene the decision by Schiavo's husband and guardian to remove the feeding tubes from his wife after she had spent 15 years in a vegetative state."
...learn more with wikipedia information on the Terry Schiavo case...
Once again, GOPers want to have it both ways. It's interesting to note, however, that their charges of government intrusion in the health insurance reform bill are actually made up, fictitious, as in not real. The language of the bill does not mandate any end-of-life decisions. The langauge does encourage and provide incentives for end-of-life discussions between physician and patient about every 5 years.
They are getting the headlines, though. And this is confusing the heck out of a lot of people, especially those with limited access to information from both sides of the issue. Who are the people with such limited access to information? Why, in many cases, they're the very people that health insurance reform is supposed to help! They're low-income elderly who don't have cable (yes, America, not everybody in America can afford even basic cable), they're homeless, or non-English speaking, and others who aren't digitally connected to high speed Internet or aren't computer savvy.
Another problem is that sorting out this misinformation takes time. I've spent many hours reading through different viewpoints and actual text of legislation. I've had the privilege of a summer intern who did some basic research for me, bookmarking websites and getting bill #s and references so I can do a more thorough review. Not too many people have that assistance. I'll do a separate post with many of those links.
Why is the GOP so intent on spreading myth and misinformation? Could it be that they have no valid reasons to fight against health insurance reform? Is this just a GOP tactic to make it difficult for Democrats to push through reform? It isn't a stretch for me to believe that. I just look at some of the other tactics they've taken over the years when it looked as Democrats might win. The "Swift Boat" attacks on John Kerry come to mind.
The GOP seems to find it easier to make things up rather than argue the facts. The sensational headlines are an easy grab, make for more media coverage, and give them air time when they have nothing real to say. Shame on them.
Health care and health insurance reform are needed. Now. Whether the President's plan is the best one to follow, it's a start in the right direction. It does not create socialized medicine, which is something so many people fear. It creates a multi-player and multi-payer system that extends health coverage to a great many people who don't have any coverage now.
Let's face it; staying healthy is less expensive than getting sick. If we can provide health care to more people, so they stay healthy, we'll have gone a long way toward fixing a broken system.
Either way, some of the champions behind spreading myth and misinformation are the same people who felt that Congress should step in and take over the life-or-death decision regardng Terry Schaivo about 4 years ago.
From the Huffington Post...
"Some of the same conservative figures taking potshots at Democrats for wanting to fund voluntary discussions about end-of-life decisions between doctors and their patients were leading the charge four years ago to contravene the decision by Schiavo's husband and guardian to remove the feeding tubes from his wife after she had spent 15 years in a vegetative state."
...learn more with wikipedia information on the Terry Schiavo case...
Once again, GOPers want to have it both ways. It's interesting to note, however, that their charges of government intrusion in the health insurance reform bill are actually made up, fictitious, as in not real. The language of the bill does not mandate any end-of-life decisions. The langauge does encourage and provide incentives for end-of-life discussions between physician and patient about every 5 years.
They are getting the headlines, though. And this is confusing the heck out of a lot of people, especially those with limited access to information from both sides of the issue. Who are the people with such limited access to information? Why, in many cases, they're the very people that health insurance reform is supposed to help! They're low-income elderly who don't have cable (yes, America, not everybody in America can afford even basic cable), they're homeless, or non-English speaking, and others who aren't digitally connected to high speed Internet or aren't computer savvy.
Another problem is that sorting out this misinformation takes time. I've spent many hours reading through different viewpoints and actual text of legislation. I've had the privilege of a summer intern who did some basic research for me, bookmarking websites and getting bill #s and references so I can do a more thorough review. Not too many people have that assistance. I'll do a separate post with many of those links.
Why is the GOP so intent on spreading myth and misinformation? Could it be that they have no valid reasons to fight against health insurance reform? Is this just a GOP tactic to make it difficult for Democrats to push through reform? It isn't a stretch for me to believe that. I just look at some of the other tactics they've taken over the years when it looked as Democrats might win. The "Swift Boat" attacks on John Kerry come to mind.
The GOP seems to find it easier to make things up rather than argue the facts. The sensational headlines are an easy grab, make for more media coverage, and give them air time when they have nothing real to say. Shame on them.
Health care and health insurance reform are needed. Now. Whether the President's plan is the best one to follow, it's a start in the right direction. It does not create socialized medicine, which is something so many people fear. It creates a multi-player and multi-payer system that extends health coverage to a great many people who don't have any coverage now.
Let's face it; staying healthy is less expensive than getting sick. If we can provide health care to more people, so they stay healthy, we'll have gone a long way toward fixing a broken system.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Debunking Health Care MISinformation, 2
Many people (many, many people) don't really know what's in the huge health care bill and will never read it. They rely on journalists and others to tell them what's in it and how that affects them. That's somewhat understandable. Legislation is really dry reading. And you've got to pay attention to what section and subsections you're in so that you can piece together which facts actually affect which other facts.
Which is why I'm steamed over the current health care bill. Actually, I'm steamed over the attempts by conservatives to distort the facts and misrepresent what's in the bill. The fear-mongering and scare tactics are especially cruel to people who are currently worried about health care costs and have medical issues that mean this bill will affect them very quickly when/if it passes.
A few places where you can begin fact-checking are Debunking Health Care Misinformation, which I mentioned in Monday's blog; The Washington Post (and be sure to click on related links so you can get updated articles; and the Huffington Post. You can search for more information and I'm sure you'll find many different stories out there.
That's what is so difficult about this issue; there's so many stories out there. But many of them are not true. Why is it that lies travel faster and farther than truth? Why does health care create such a ferver and bring out the worst in the GOP?
I'm going to single out Sarah Palin because she's getting a lot of attention with statements about fear of the government "pulling the plug" on her Downs Syndrome son. That's just so blatantly untrue and demonstrates her true nature. She's a sensationalist and will use anything, including her own children, to put herself into the spotlight. I'll wager that she hasn't even read the bill! And as a key figure in her state (before her resignation) and in her party (they'll use her for as long as she can grab attention), she should have read AND UNDERSTOOD every word.
We have a few more weeks that Congress is out-of-session. Let's use the time to actually research the facts about the health care bill, understand what it means for those we represent or our family members, and then expose the lies and distortions being played out across the airwaves, Internet, and newspapers. Let's help get the truth out to our families and seniors and those who don't have access to the truth. Let's talk to the staff of our legislators and find out their views on the bill.
And for those of you can stand it, get on those radio shows and debunk those myths that are being spouted by hateful, harmful people. Me, I can't stand talk radio and cannot listen for even 5 minutes, so I'd have a hard time listening long enough to call in! But if you can stomach it, go ahead and do that part.
Then, we need to inform our legislators on what we want them to do for us. We need to bring facts to them, not rhetoric. We need to bring voters to them, not lies. We need to gather the signatures of our families and people who have learned the truth and tell our legislators what we want them to vote on and how we want them to vote.
If we don't fight back, we lose; it's that simple.
Which is why I'm steamed over the current health care bill. Actually, I'm steamed over the attempts by conservatives to distort the facts and misrepresent what's in the bill. The fear-mongering and scare tactics are especially cruel to people who are currently worried about health care costs and have medical issues that mean this bill will affect them very quickly when/if it passes.
A few places where you can begin fact-checking are Debunking Health Care Misinformation, which I mentioned in Monday's blog; The Washington Post (and be sure to click on related links so you can get updated articles; and the Huffington Post. You can search for more information and I'm sure you'll find many different stories out there.
That's what is so difficult about this issue; there's so many stories out there. But many of them are not true. Why is it that lies travel faster and farther than truth? Why does health care create such a ferver and bring out the worst in the GOP?
I'm going to single out Sarah Palin because she's getting a lot of attention with statements about fear of the government "pulling the plug" on her Downs Syndrome son. That's just so blatantly untrue and demonstrates her true nature. She's a sensationalist and will use anything, including her own children, to put herself into the spotlight. I'll wager that she hasn't even read the bill! And as a key figure in her state (before her resignation) and in her party (they'll use her for as long as she can grab attention), she should have read AND UNDERSTOOD every word.
We have a few more weeks that Congress is out-of-session. Let's use the time to actually research the facts about the health care bill, understand what it means for those we represent or our family members, and then expose the lies and distortions being played out across the airwaves, Internet, and newspapers. Let's help get the truth out to our families and seniors and those who don't have access to the truth. Let's talk to the staff of our legislators and find out their views on the bill.
And for those of you can stand it, get on those radio shows and debunk those myths that are being spouted by hateful, harmful people. Me, I can't stand talk radio and cannot listen for even 5 minutes, so I'd have a hard time listening long enough to call in! But if you can stomach it, go ahead and do that part.
Then, we need to inform our legislators on what we want them to do for us. We need to bring facts to them, not rhetoric. We need to bring voters to them, not lies. We need to gather the signatures of our families and people who have learned the truth and tell our legislators what we want them to vote on and how we want them to vote.
If we don't fight back, we lose; it's that simple.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Debunking Health Care Misinformation
I still have more reading to do, but this site is a great resource for getting behind the many rumors and misinformation regarding the Health Care bill.
Check it out for yourself and see what you think. I'll post more on it later, but wanted to get this resource out there, in your view.
Check it out for yourself and see what you think. I'll post more on it later, but wanted to get this resource out there, in your view.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
PodCamp Boston 4, Part 1
I've been to the last 3 Boston PodCamps and they are evolving just as the Internet itself is evolving. What was a very grassroots, "hey, I do a podcast on this topic..." and "here's how you do a podcast" set of sessions has changed.
I do miss some of the types of sessions I encountered at my first PodCamp. It had a campy, homey, feel to it and I met a lot of everyday people who had something to say and used the Internet, specifically podcasting, to say it. And they were thrilled to help others learn the process too.
However, I am truly amazed and impressed with the change in PodCamp. I do wish it had more of the original elements along with the new elements. That would make it just right. I suspect it might draw more people too.
First, PodCamp sessions have evolved into much more technically-driven content. There still are sessions on "How Do I Turn My Dining Room into a Recording Studio?" and those very necessary basic how-to's. We need those as new people are getting into the process all the time.
The change is that there are many more sessions on ROI (return on investment) for the corporation (or non-profit), measuring the impact of social media, how to use podcasting for employee training or (B2B) business-to-business marketing, etc.
Two sessions I attended yesterday afternoon were very powerful not just because of the content, but because the presenters were less than half my age. At last year's PodCamp, we had several high school students presenting. This year, while a bit older (college age), again, young people are leading us into our future with technology. I wonder if our schools even know how to tap into the talent of some of the young people in it.
We have some very bright young minds who are grappling with the Digital Humanities -- the intersection of philosophy (yes, Plato and Socrates) and technology; looking at both the study of technology and the technology of study, among other things; -- and how social technology has changed and is changing web culture -- with an impact beyond the web, of course, which changes or influences social culture.
PodCamp Boston 4 has much more of a technical flavor to it this year. It's more about capturing and managing data than podcasting for fun. That doesn't take away from it's value. For many, it enhances the value because podcasting has become a tool for businesses and not just an outlet for the average person. And I'm glad to see topics that help non-profits use social media to engage their communities. I think non-profits really need to learn about and use social media much more than they do, but that they first must educate themselves on it. PodCamp is one education tool they could use for that.
I go to PodCamp each year even though I am not a podcaster. I don't have the time to set it all up and get things going, yet. It took me a while to carve out a space for myself to blog regularly. But I know I'll get around to it, when the time is right. Meanwhile thought, I go each year to listen, learn, share in discussions, and see where things are going. I see friends and make new friends. But mostly I go because it expands my thinking about my interactions with the world and who the shakers and movers are in the social media space. I get more resources than I'll ever use, but can always share those with someone who can use them.
So, it's back to PodCamp this morning to get more soul food. I'll have more to say after that.
I do miss some of the types of sessions I encountered at my first PodCamp. It had a campy, homey, feel to it and I met a lot of everyday people who had something to say and used the Internet, specifically podcasting, to say it. And they were thrilled to help others learn the process too.
However, I am truly amazed and impressed with the change in PodCamp. I do wish it had more of the original elements along with the new elements. That would make it just right. I suspect it might draw more people too.
First, PodCamp sessions have evolved into much more technically-driven content. There still are sessions on "How Do I Turn My Dining Room into a Recording Studio?" and those very necessary basic how-to's. We need those as new people are getting into the process all the time.
The change is that there are many more sessions on ROI (return on investment) for the corporation (or non-profit), measuring the impact of social media, how to use podcasting for employee training or (B2B) business-to-business marketing, etc.
Two sessions I attended yesterday afternoon were very powerful not just because of the content, but because the presenters were less than half my age. At last year's PodCamp, we had several high school students presenting. This year, while a bit older (college age), again, young people are leading us into our future with technology. I wonder if our schools even know how to tap into the talent of some of the young people in it.
We have some very bright young minds who are grappling with the Digital Humanities -- the intersection of philosophy (yes, Plato and Socrates) and technology; looking at both the study of technology and the technology of study, among other things; -- and how social technology has changed and is changing web culture -- with an impact beyond the web, of course, which changes or influences social culture.
PodCamp Boston 4 has much more of a technical flavor to it this year. It's more about capturing and managing data than podcasting for fun. That doesn't take away from it's value. For many, it enhances the value because podcasting has become a tool for businesses and not just an outlet for the average person. And I'm glad to see topics that help non-profits use social media to engage their communities. I think non-profits really need to learn about and use social media much more than they do, but that they first must educate themselves on it. PodCamp is one education tool they could use for that.
I go to PodCamp each year even though I am not a podcaster. I don't have the time to set it all up and get things going, yet. It took me a while to carve out a space for myself to blog regularly. But I know I'll get around to it, when the time is right. Meanwhile thought, I go each year to listen, learn, share in discussions, and see where things are going. I see friends and make new friends. But mostly I go because it expands my thinking about my interactions with the world and who the shakers and movers are in the social media space. I get more resources than I'll ever use, but can always share those with someone who can use them.
So, it's back to PodCamp this morning to get more soul food. I'll have more to say after that.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Web 3.0, the Philanthropic Edge
Peter Deitz, founder of Social Actions, spoke last evening at the Ethos Roundtable about Web 3.0, the Philanthropic Web. Peter founded Social Actions, whose slogan is, "you make a difference, we make it easy," to help people take action on social issues.
Social Actions is an action aggregator. An aggregator is a website that pulls in feeds from other websites. Many people are familiar with news aggregators that pull in news articles from other websites. Aggregators can work by pulling information from pre-approved or pre-selected sites, which is how Social Actions works, or by searching the web for relevant text based on a search algorithm. Social Actions targets the hubs of civic engagement opportunities on the web and aggregates the action feeds. Action feeds are the social actions people can take, such as donate something, volunteer, give to a cause, attend a rally, etc.
Here's how this works. I want to volunteer or donate or work on a social issue, etc. I could go to a search website that I already about and see if they have any opportunities that fit my interest. If they do, then I can take action on that interest and connect with the organization that listed the opportunity. But what if that search website doesn't have the opportunity I'm looking for? What if the organization with the need didn't list opportunity on the search website I know about?
Social Actions subscribes to the feed from more than 50 such websites and is actively working to add more to the list of participating organizations. If I go to Social Actions to search for my opportunity, I will get relevant information from multiple partners who have opportunities that fit my criteria. Social Actions does not list opportunities; it lets other organizations manage that while it subscribes to their feeds to provide the opportunities to the widest possible audience.
Organizations with social actions available benefit from wider posting of their opportunities. Individuals benefit from having a wider range of opportunities from which to choose. Once you find the opportunity, you click on it and go directly to the website listing that opportunity. Social Actions tracks its click-throughs so it knows how well it serves partnering organizations.
The opportunities that Social Actions lists run the gamut from youth to health to petitions to climate and many, many more. If you have a cause you care about, you'll probably find it there. And if you have a favorite search website you use to find or post opportunities, you'll probably find them on Social Actions.
Peter believes that the non-profit community should define Web 3.0 and not wait for the for-profit community to do so. That means they should create the tools they need to spread their mission, organize, get volunteers and/or donors, and -- most important --they need to define the standards for these web-based tools or others will define them.
Defining standards for Linked Data is a huge project; one that Tim Berners-Lee, founder of the World Wide Web (the www in those Internet addresses) and Director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), is actively pursuing. Linked Data, simply put, is data embedded on a website that becomes searchable and usable; it links the data to other data sets (locations, news, actions, etc.) and helps create the Symantic Web*.
Currently, search engines provide lots of raw data; do a topical search and you may have thousands of possible links. Using Linked Data, the same search could narrow the results to much more relevant data, eliminating sites that may mention the keywords but are not relevant in actual context.
Once again, the Ethos Roundtable provided a timely, informative topic to the non-profit community. Deborah Finn always seems to be on the cutting edge of technology for non-profits. She knows who is "in the know" and uses Ethos Roundtable to bring them to us. Ethos Roundtable is an informal group of people who are interested in 1) measuring and extending ethos, and 2) using technology for positive social change. They meet once a month in Harvard Square (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) for discussions and presentations.
*Symantic Web: According to wikipedia, the Symantic Web is "an evolving development of the World Wide Web in which the semantics of information and services on the web is defined, making it possible for the web to understand and satisfy the requests of people and machines to use the web content."
Social Actions is an action aggregator. An aggregator is a website that pulls in feeds from other websites. Many people are familiar with news aggregators that pull in news articles from other websites. Aggregators can work by pulling information from pre-approved or pre-selected sites, which is how Social Actions works, or by searching the web for relevant text based on a search algorithm. Social Actions targets the hubs of civic engagement opportunities on the web and aggregates the action feeds. Action feeds are the social actions people can take, such as donate something, volunteer, give to a cause, attend a rally, etc.
Here's how this works. I want to volunteer or donate or work on a social issue, etc. I could go to a search website that I already about and see if they have any opportunities that fit my interest. If they do, then I can take action on that interest and connect with the organization that listed the opportunity. But what if that search website doesn't have the opportunity I'm looking for? What if the organization with the need didn't list opportunity on the search website I know about?
Social Actions subscribes to the feed from more than 50 such websites and is actively working to add more to the list of participating organizations. If I go to Social Actions to search for my opportunity, I will get relevant information from multiple partners who have opportunities that fit my criteria. Social Actions does not list opportunities; it lets other organizations manage that while it subscribes to their feeds to provide the opportunities to the widest possible audience.
Organizations with social actions available benefit from wider posting of their opportunities. Individuals benefit from having a wider range of opportunities from which to choose. Once you find the opportunity, you click on it and go directly to the website listing that opportunity. Social Actions tracks its click-throughs so it knows how well it serves partnering organizations.
The opportunities that Social Actions lists run the gamut from youth to health to petitions to climate and many, many more. If you have a cause you care about, you'll probably find it there. And if you have a favorite search website you use to find or post opportunities, you'll probably find them on Social Actions.
Peter believes that the non-profit community should define Web 3.0 and not wait for the for-profit community to do so. That means they should create the tools they need to spread their mission, organize, get volunteers and/or donors, and -- most important --they need to define the standards for these web-based tools or others will define them.
Defining standards for Linked Data is a huge project; one that Tim Berners-Lee, founder of the World Wide Web (the www in those Internet addresses) and Director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), is actively pursuing. Linked Data, simply put, is data embedded on a website that becomes searchable and usable; it links the data to other data sets (locations, news, actions, etc.) and helps create the Symantic Web*.
Currently, search engines provide lots of raw data; do a topical search and you may have thousands of possible links. Using Linked Data, the same search could narrow the results to much more relevant data, eliminating sites that may mention the keywords but are not relevant in actual context.
Once again, the Ethos Roundtable provided a timely, informative topic to the non-profit community. Deborah Finn always seems to be on the cutting edge of technology for non-profits. She knows who is "in the know" and uses Ethos Roundtable to bring them to us. Ethos Roundtable is an informal group of people who are interested in 1) measuring and extending ethos, and 2) using technology for positive social change. They meet once a month in Harvard Square (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) for discussions and presentations.
*Symantic Web: According to wikipedia, the Symantic Web is "an evolving development of the World Wide Web in which the semantics of information and services on the web is defined, making it possible for the web to understand and satisfy the requests of people and machines to use the web content."
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Engaging My Community Using Social Media
This morning's post is in response to the question, "How has engaging your community changed with your use of social media?" The question was posed by Amy Sample Ward as the July Net2 Think Tank. The Think Tank is sponsored by Net2d (Net Squared) which is an initiative from techsoup. The answer has multiple parts because I am part of several communities, as are most of us.
My organization is not yet using social networking tools other than to post job openings. My personal use of social networking tools is beginning to creep into the picture though. And, they are in the early stages of website redesign that will bring more community/client interaction to them through the website. They will do more with social networking, I'm sure, once they understand it better and can clarify how to use it to enhance their mission.
Client Community
For my client community, social media hasn't had as much effect on how I engage because so many of my clients are not using social media. I hope this will change and I am actually a partner in an effort, the Cyber Cafe @ Malden Square, to provide the technology, tools, and training so they can engage electronically. But many of them are a long way off from doing so. Despite this, I use blogging tools to provide resources and other information to them and thus am exposing them to bits and pieces of it. It's very limited engagement, as it's primarily one way communication.
One example is a jobs posting list. We used to print out copious pages of job listings and place them in a binder and hope people would find something that fit them. It was a huge drain on resources and often out-of-date. Now, we use a blogging tool to email job postings to the blog as they arrive on our desk and link that site off our main site. Clients sit down at the public computers and can search through current listings and email their resume without ever having to print anything out. It saves time, money, and trees. It puts them in charge of the process as they can use hyperlinks to explore other job opportunities with that company too.
Even with limited use, client feedback is strongly positive. They come looking for assistance with one issue, but end up with tools that will help them work on several issues. These tools empower them, even if they're not the one using the tool. If they don't know how to use a computer or a particular tool, the Cyber Cafe often has volunteers who can work one-on-one with them to learn and yet be productive during that learning curve. They walk out the door with more options that they had when they came in the door.
Peer Community
Social networking has expanded my ability to keep up with my peers within my organization as well as in the larger community. I'm a networker. I have a question or problem -- I ask someone whom I think will know the answer. I don't care much about organizational boundaries. Someone out there probably knows the answer and I use lists, contacts, and shared contacts* to get answers. LinkedIn has good tools for that. I tend to use Facebook more, though. It just is a more relaxed, casual interface; I use it a lot for professional pursuits and I also use it for personal pursuits.
A colleague from another organization and I just set up a social networking tool for a network of organizations who meet regularly around health care access. We physically meet monthly; in the virtual world, we can meet more often and accomplish so much more; share resources, ideas, and documents; collaborate more quickly on deadline oriented issues, etc. For my tastes, having a group that combines social networking with face-to-face gatherings is ideal.
All work and no play makes Claire grumpy. So I also use social networking with my peers to be me -- playful, joking, serious, hard working... The social time we spend with people is often what drives them to come to us with a work question. In fact, I think it's very important to be able to socialize with your colleagues, away from work, occasionally. Timewise, it doesn't happen often in the real world because our days are long and the work is intense. In the virtual world, however, I can take a few minutes in the early morning or late evening and engage using social networking and do something frivolous with them. Facebook has some fun tools for that.
Volunteer Community
Volunteers are unpaid staff; that's a long-held philosophy of mine. So they need the same nurturing (if not more) as paid staff, yet I don't have a lot of time to spend with them. And many of them are not physically on site; they're on committees or work on projects remotely. Various social networking tools aide me in communicating, informing, scheduling, and generally interacting with them. Wiggio has become my recent group collaboration tool. It's fairly new and is developing new tools, but I need basic calendaring and communication for now and it does the job.
What's Coming
As I develop better CMS (content management sytem) web developer skills, I'll be converting a bunch of my websites to ones where all 3 of these communities can interact more easily, which basically means sharing my networks more broadly. What I see happening as a result is that some of these will overlap.
I don't want to lose sight of the fact that sometimes we need to keep our client community somewhat distanced from our personal communities. So I don't want too much overlap. There are times when we need to close our door and have some time for ourselves. Client needs can be overwhelming and that's where I do need boundaries. Many of our clients don't have any boundaries. So expanding social networking to meet their needs will take some balance between meeting their needs and meeting my own needs for a separate space and some "me time."
For me, spending less time on the phone trying to chase down a lead, answer, or person is one of the blessings of Web 2.0 tools. Phone tag is so wasteful. Sending an email is more productive. But using a tool that gets the message out to many, with responses from a broader community, including our clients, brings more options into play.
Options -- I like having options, especially since there are no "one size fits all" solutions to people's problems. At the end of the day, I have to remember that I am not dealing with problems, I am dealing with people. Social Networking tools put me in touch with so many more people, who arrive at solutions differently and arrive at different solutions. I end up with more information, more options, and better solutions that let me do a better job of helping the client who doesn't use social networking -- yet!
*shared contacts: for the uninitiated, my definition of a shared contact is someone who is not in my network but is in one of my network contact's network; I ask you and you ask that person and put us in touch with each other.
My organization is not yet using social networking tools other than to post job openings. My personal use of social networking tools is beginning to creep into the picture though. And, they are in the early stages of website redesign that will bring more community/client interaction to them through the website. They will do more with social networking, I'm sure, once they understand it better and can clarify how to use it to enhance their mission.
Client Community
For my client community, social media hasn't had as much effect on how I engage because so many of my clients are not using social media. I hope this will change and I am actually a partner in an effort, the Cyber Cafe @ Malden Square, to provide the technology, tools, and training so they can engage electronically. But many of them are a long way off from doing so. Despite this, I use blogging tools to provide resources and other information to them and thus am exposing them to bits and pieces of it. It's very limited engagement, as it's primarily one way communication.
One example is a jobs posting list. We used to print out copious pages of job listings and place them in a binder and hope people would find something that fit them. It was a huge drain on resources and often out-of-date. Now, we use a blogging tool to email job postings to the blog as they arrive on our desk and link that site off our main site. Clients sit down at the public computers and can search through current listings and email their resume without ever having to print anything out. It saves time, money, and trees. It puts them in charge of the process as they can use hyperlinks to explore other job opportunities with that company too.
Even with limited use, client feedback is strongly positive. They come looking for assistance with one issue, but end up with tools that will help them work on several issues. These tools empower them, even if they're not the one using the tool. If they don't know how to use a computer or a particular tool, the Cyber Cafe often has volunteers who can work one-on-one with them to learn and yet be productive during that learning curve. They walk out the door with more options that they had when they came in the door.
Peer Community
Social networking has expanded my ability to keep up with my peers within my organization as well as in the larger community. I'm a networker. I have a question or problem -- I ask someone whom I think will know the answer. I don't care much about organizational boundaries. Someone out there probably knows the answer and I use lists, contacts, and shared contacts* to get answers. LinkedIn has good tools for that. I tend to use Facebook more, though. It just is a more relaxed, casual interface; I use it a lot for professional pursuits and I also use it for personal pursuits.
A colleague from another organization and I just set up a social networking tool for a network of organizations who meet regularly around health care access. We physically meet monthly; in the virtual world, we can meet more often and accomplish so much more; share resources, ideas, and documents; collaborate more quickly on deadline oriented issues, etc. For my tastes, having a group that combines social networking with face-to-face gatherings is ideal.
All work and no play makes Claire grumpy. So I also use social networking with my peers to be me -- playful, joking, serious, hard working... The social time we spend with people is often what drives them to come to us with a work question. In fact, I think it's very important to be able to socialize with your colleagues, away from work, occasionally. Timewise, it doesn't happen often in the real world because our days are long and the work is intense. In the virtual world, however, I can take a few minutes in the early morning or late evening and engage using social networking and do something frivolous with them. Facebook has some fun tools for that.
Volunteer Community
Volunteers are unpaid staff; that's a long-held philosophy of mine. So they need the same nurturing (if not more) as paid staff, yet I don't have a lot of time to spend with them. And many of them are not physically on site; they're on committees or work on projects remotely. Various social networking tools aide me in communicating, informing, scheduling, and generally interacting with them. Wiggio has become my recent group collaboration tool. It's fairly new and is developing new tools, but I need basic calendaring and communication for now and it does the job.
What's Coming
As I develop better CMS (content management sytem) web developer skills, I'll be converting a bunch of my websites to ones where all 3 of these communities can interact more easily, which basically means sharing my networks more broadly. What I see happening as a result is that some of these will overlap.
I don't want to lose sight of the fact that sometimes we need to keep our client community somewhat distanced from our personal communities. So I don't want too much overlap. There are times when we need to close our door and have some time for ourselves. Client needs can be overwhelming and that's where I do need boundaries. Many of our clients don't have any boundaries. So expanding social networking to meet their needs will take some balance between meeting their needs and meeting my own needs for a separate space and some "me time."
For me, spending less time on the phone trying to chase down a lead, answer, or person is one of the blessings of Web 2.0 tools. Phone tag is so wasteful. Sending an email is more productive. But using a tool that gets the message out to many, with responses from a broader community, including our clients, brings more options into play.
Options -- I like having options, especially since there are no "one size fits all" solutions to people's problems. At the end of the day, I have to remember that I am not dealing with problems, I am dealing with people. Social Networking tools put me in touch with so many more people, who arrive at solutions differently and arrive at different solutions. I end up with more information, more options, and better solutions that let me do a better job of helping the client who doesn't use social networking -- yet!
*shared contacts: for the uninitiated, my definition of a shared contact is someone who is not in my network but is in one of my network contact's network; I ask you and you ask that person and put us in touch with each other.
Friday, July 10, 2009
More on "Ask Your LawMaker"
Recently (June 7th), I posted about"Ask Your LawMaker" and this morning ran across this better description by Andy Orami that includes some analysis of the potential for this site/service.
If you want to influence lawmakers, this is an incredibly powerful tool. Simply put, if people don't use it, it won't work. If you don't have a burning question, check it out anyway and see what others are asking. You may find that what you think is something only you care about is really something that others also care about. Then you add your vote and others add their votes and you discover that your "unimportant" question is really something that a lot of people care about.
Ask Your LawMaker can only work if we use it and if we also check the questions periodically to vote on those questions that are important to us. So, check it out, see what questions people are asking, and vote for those questions that you want asked.
If you want to influence lawmakers, this is an incredibly powerful tool. Simply put, if people don't use it, it won't work. If you don't have a burning question, check it out anyway and see what others are asking. You may find that what you think is something only you care about is really something that others also care about. Then you add your vote and others add their votes and you discover that your "unimportant" question is really something that a lot of people care about.
Ask Your LawMaker can only work if we use it and if we also check the questions periodically to vote on those questions that are important to us. So, check it out, see what questions people are asking, and vote for those questions that you want asked.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Sarah Palin, Warrior - OR - Sarah Palin, Whiner
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's surprise announcement the other day that she is stepping down at the end of the month -- almost 18 months before the end of her first term in office -- caught a lot of people by surprise. But she's full of surprises. Many of her surprises, however, seem to stem from an acute lack of judgement rather than some innate sense of good politics or timing.
Some of the "winners" she's come up with include:
during the Presidential campaign, asking Steve Schmidt, chief strategist for the McCain campaing, to lie about her husband's 1995-2002 membership in the Alaska Independence Party, a secessionist Alaska organization. ...link to related story
in her emails to Schmidt on the above topic, she failed to mention that she delivered the AIP's opening convention remarks in 2008 ...oops, she just forgot???
failure to credit author Craig Shirley & Newt Gringich for significant portions of her introduction of Michael Reagan at the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts last month ...link to recording
not only did she borrow liberally from their 2005 article--she mentioned Gringich but failed to mention Shirley at all--not once did she reveal that she was actually quoting heavily from their article with some slight paraphrasing ...link to related article
Palin has a habit of exaggerating what is, and spinning it to an out-of-control level that seems to justify her rage & retaliation; when people say unflattering things about Palin, she gets mad and when she's mad she doesn't seem to think.
Latest case in point? Palin's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, issued a letter stating that Palin is considering legal action against Alaskan and Huffington Post blogger Shannon Moore, as well as the Washington Post, New York Times, MSNBC, and Huffington Post. Moore was apparently individually singled out because she talked about, on national television, the rumors that Palin resigned because she is under criminal investigation. Van Flein's letter is innacurate (oh, those pesky details) and charges that Moore said it is "fact" that Palin is resigning because she is under federal investigation; in reality Moore stated that rumors have been floating for "6 weeks or two months" that Palin was under "criminal investigation." Put that together with her sudden resignation and the rumors are increasing; Moore reported on this.
Rumors about politicos circulate all the time, but Palin felt that Moore's exposure on national television merited at attack. Moore has been put "on notice by Sarah Palin's lawyers not to speak crtically of Palin in the media." Moore did not even receive the actual letter before dozens of others received it, but when she did, on July 4th, her response was incredulity that on our national day commemorating our freedom, she received an order attempting to limit her freedom as a reporter and citizen or be subject to legal action. Of course, since nothing she said is libelous, Moore will ignore the letter and continue to report.
In reading through many blogs and other articles to create this post, I came away with one major impression of Sarah Palin. She's a whiner. Rather than gather facts, admit faults, and deal with reality, Palin goes after the person who points out her deficits and declares war. She is upset that the media picks on her, points out her flaws, demands accountability, and reports on her mistakes. Uh, that's part of their job, isn't it?
This woman thought she was qualified to be our Vice President. She'd be the person to take charge if the President were unable to complete a term of office. And she cannot deal with the scrutiny of her actions while in office? We are talking about scrutiny of her actions related to office, not her personal life, so she had better learn to take the heat and perhaps starting thinking before she makes some of those questionable decisions that brought the heat on in the first place.
Sarah Palin, Warrior? NOT! Sarah Palin, Whiner? YES!
For a more indepth, but unflattering, look at Palin, check out Vanity Fair's lengthy article by Todd Purdum .
Some of the "winners" she's come up with include:
Palin has a habit of exaggerating what is, and spinning it to an out-of-control level that seems to justify her rage & retaliation; when people say unflattering things about Palin, she gets mad and when she's mad she doesn't seem to think.
Latest case in point? Palin's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, issued a letter stating that Palin is considering legal action against Alaskan and Huffington Post blogger Shannon Moore, as well as the Washington Post, New York Times, MSNBC, and Huffington Post. Moore was apparently individually singled out because she talked about, on national television, the rumors that Palin resigned because she is under criminal investigation. Van Flein's letter is innacurate (oh, those pesky details) and charges that Moore said it is "fact" that Palin is resigning because she is under federal investigation; in reality Moore stated that rumors have been floating for "6 weeks or two months" that Palin was under "criminal investigation." Put that together with her sudden resignation and the rumors are increasing; Moore reported on this.
Rumors about politicos circulate all the time, but Palin felt that Moore's exposure on national television merited at attack. Moore has been put "on notice by Sarah Palin's lawyers not to speak crtically of Palin in the media." Moore did not even receive the actual letter before dozens of others received it, but when she did, on July 4th, her response was incredulity that on our national day commemorating our freedom, she received an order attempting to limit her freedom as a reporter and citizen or be subject to legal action. Of course, since nothing she said is libelous, Moore will ignore the letter and continue to report.
In reading through many blogs and other articles to create this post, I came away with one major impression of Sarah Palin. She's a whiner. Rather than gather facts, admit faults, and deal with reality, Palin goes after the person who points out her deficits and declares war. She is upset that the media picks on her, points out her flaws, demands accountability, and reports on her mistakes. Uh, that's part of their job, isn't it?
This woman thought she was qualified to be our Vice President. She'd be the person to take charge if the President were unable to complete a term of office. And she cannot deal with the scrutiny of her actions while in office? We are talking about scrutiny of her actions related to office, not her personal life, so she had better learn to take the heat and perhaps starting thinking before she makes some of those questionable decisions that brought the heat on in the first place.
Sarah Palin, Warrior? NOT! Sarah Palin, Whiner? YES!
For a more indepth, but unflattering, look at Palin, check out Vanity Fair's lengthy article by Todd Purdum .
H.R. 875: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009
What sounds good on the surface -- the protection of our food supply system -- seems to have a number of people and groups up in arms against what they say is a badly written piece of legislation that will end organic farming as we know it today.
"To establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes."
The bill, H.R. 875, is now in committee. It would put food safety monitoring and control under the a new agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. The Senate is considering a similar bill, S. 425, and the House also has a substitute bill, H.R. 759.
At a time when food-borne incidents are widespread and growing, it's time for some type of action. However, good intent does not always mean good results. A petition organized by the Natural Solutions Foundation is solidly against the bill, although it supports removing food supply oversight from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Organic farmers are afraid the bill will force them to feed chemicals to their food animals, spray chemicals on crops, and generally eliminate "organic farming" as a chemical-free alternative. I haven't found this stated in the bill, but can imagine that the proposed Food Safety Administration could do this because of what is left out of the bill.
Congress must listen to its constituents, including the small farmers and individual voters. Small farmers and micro- and mini-agricultural businesses, which describes many organic food suppliers, need not be legislated to the same degree as large agricultural suppliers.
What I do not know, and therefore am cautious about, is who is really behind both sides of the issue. Some claim that large chemical manufacturers that produce chemicals for the agriculture industry are behind these bills. Opponents of the bill claim that small, organic farms will be too tightly regulated--but who is and what are behind these claims? I cannot imagine that the growing business of organic farms is composed only of very small businesses. In the tug-of-war over legislation, it's important to do some fact-finding before jumping on the bandwagon of either side.
Some questions the legislation, as currently written, bring to my mind include:
how will it affect the farmers markets across the nation?
will it severely burden small farmers who provide produce locally?
who will staff this new department (credentials, influence, etc.) to protect consumers not just from "bad food" but also from large chemical manufacturers that want to chemically enhance all our food supply?
I'm sure you can think of a few questions too. The sites I've linked to in this article will bring you to a number of others. You can do your own research and make your own decision as to whether this is good or bad legislation.
"To establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes."
The bill, H.R. 875, is now in committee. It would put food safety monitoring and control under the a new agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. The Senate is considering a similar bill, S. 425, and the House also has a substitute bill, H.R. 759.
At a time when food-borne incidents are widespread and growing, it's time for some type of action. However, good intent does not always mean good results. A petition organized by the Natural Solutions Foundation is solidly against the bill, although it supports removing food supply oversight from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Organic farmers are afraid the bill will force them to feed chemicals to their food animals, spray chemicals on crops, and generally eliminate "organic farming" as a chemical-free alternative. I haven't found this stated in the bill, but can imagine that the proposed Food Safety Administration could do this because of what is left out of the bill.
Congress must listen to its constituents, including the small farmers and individual voters. Small farmers and micro- and mini-agricultural businesses, which describes many organic food suppliers, need not be legislated to the same degree as large agricultural suppliers.
What I do not know, and therefore am cautious about, is who is really behind both sides of the issue. Some claim that large chemical manufacturers that produce chemicals for the agriculture industry are behind these bills. Opponents of the bill claim that small, organic farms will be too tightly regulated--but who is and what are behind these claims? I cannot imagine that the growing business of organic farms is composed only of very small businesses. In the tug-of-war over legislation, it's important to do some fact-finding before jumping on the bandwagon of either side.
Some questions the legislation, as currently written, bring to my mind include:
I'm sure you can think of a few questions too. The sites I've linked to in this article will bring you to a number of others. You can do your own research and make your own decision as to whether this is good or bad legislation.
Friday, June 26, 2009
"Don't Tell People You're Poor; Say You're Broke -- Broke is Temporary"
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said those were his grandmother's words when he grew up "broke" in Chicago. The Governor's comments came during the unveiling of the Massachusetts Asset Development Commission's report on an 18-month study of effective ways to help "broke" people move out of poverty.
Asset Development programs help low-to-moderate income people develop assets so they can move off of public assistance and out of poverty. It has taken advocates many years to get policy makers to understand that people will never be able to move off of public assistance if getting a job and moving toward self-sufficiency means they have less to live on and pay their bills than when they received public assistance.
The current system is filled with disincentives to people getting trying to get off assistance. Part of the dilemma is that many public assistance programs prevent people from having assets -- assets that are the means by which they can move off such assistance. When people are getting back to work, they get cut off of public assistance too soon. They are not permitted to have sufficient assets to cushion unexpected crises or to move towards greater self-sufficiency. If they're a single parent, child care costs are prohibitive and they need greater assistance in this area. If they're unskilled, they need job training. And the system prevents many people from getting to jobs.
For example, it's often difficult to get to job interviews or a job without a car, but a car is an asset. The value of that asset can prevent someone from getting assistance, or, eliminate assistance they are getting if the value of the car is more than a certain amount. The price of today's cars means even an older, deteriorating car is a barrier.
Among the Commission's recommendations; raise some of these asset limits, permit people to have more money in the bank, provide greater child care assistance, and more. I'll give more detail on the Commission's recommendations later, in a separate post.
An OpEd, How Not to Help the Poor, and an article, Sweeping Welfare Changes on Tap, in yesterday's Boston Globe have more information.
While the spotlight yesterday was on the Asset Development Commission, I was privileged to have worked with Sandy Venner, Policy Director, and Jonas Parker, then Principal Researcher, of the Institute on Assets and Social Policy at Brandeis University, over the past few years. They not only worked closely with the Commission and many agencies to design and collect the study data, but they made themselves available to us (agency staff) to help us understand what the data meant. Both are able to present the information in non-jargon terms and with a human face behind the data.
The report is available as a download via the link to Brandeis above and at the Asset Development Commission website.
Asset Development programs help low-to-moderate income people develop assets so they can move off of public assistance and out of poverty. It has taken advocates many years to get policy makers to understand that people will never be able to move off of public assistance if getting a job and moving toward self-sufficiency means they have less to live on and pay their bills than when they received public assistance.
The current system is filled with disincentives to people getting trying to get off assistance. Part of the dilemma is that many public assistance programs prevent people from having assets -- assets that are the means by which they can move off such assistance. When people are getting back to work, they get cut off of public assistance too soon. They are not permitted to have sufficient assets to cushion unexpected crises or to move towards greater self-sufficiency. If they're a single parent, child care costs are prohibitive and they need greater assistance in this area. If they're unskilled, they need job training. And the system prevents many people from getting to jobs.
For example, it's often difficult to get to job interviews or a job without a car, but a car is an asset. The value of that asset can prevent someone from getting assistance, or, eliminate assistance they are getting if the value of the car is more than a certain amount. The price of today's cars means even an older, deteriorating car is a barrier.
Among the Commission's recommendations; raise some of these asset limits, permit people to have more money in the bank, provide greater child care assistance, and more. I'll give more detail on the Commission's recommendations later, in a separate post.
An OpEd, How Not to Help the Poor, and an article, Sweeping Welfare Changes on Tap, in yesterday's Boston Globe have more information.
While the spotlight yesterday was on the Asset Development Commission, I was privileged to have worked with Sandy Venner, Policy Director, and Jonas Parker, then Principal Researcher, of the Institute on Assets and Social Policy at Brandeis University, over the past few years. They not only worked closely with the Commission and many agencies to design and collect the study data, but they made themselves available to us (agency staff) to help us understand what the data meant. Both are able to present the information in non-jargon terms and with a human face behind the data.
The report is available as a download via the link to Brandeis above and at the Asset Development Commission website.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Online Capacity Mapping and Resource Matching for Nonprofits
"I was first inspired to think about one giant web-based tool for capacity mapping and resource matching for nonprofits..."
That was Deb Finn's opening line to tell us the topic of last night's Ethos Roundtable. Of course, this is huge and there is no one tool out there right now. It's more like a garden of available tools that, partly through conversations with Deb on this topic, are converging. As Deb herself states, "It's also clear that this could be many separate projects with clever mash-ups and data interchanges. In the age of XML, it does not have to be a monolith with one owner, one web host, and one platform."
The neat thing is, much of this is out there now. The difficult part is, it's not yet organized into anything recognizable. Yet. Getting it into a recognizable shape is why I used the garden analogy. One size does not fit all well. But pulling together a number or tools and placing them in an area where people can pick and choose what fits for them is a rather organic process. What grows, grows. As people use a tool, share it with others, blog about it, find it useful, etc., that process will stimulate growth.
Pulling together existing and new products/services from many organizations to provide another level of service fits another analogy I use when talking about collaboration and developing communities and their organizations. I call it JigSaw Puzzlin' because each organization is like a puzzle piece with form (shape) and function that exists independently. Sometimes several pieces (organizations) get together and form a different shape with form and function. Yet each organization retains its independence and original form and function.
How is this like JigSaw Puzzlin'? When you work a jizsaw puzzle, you pick up pieces, turn them around, look around for other pieces that may fit with the first piece, and so on. If these two pieces don't fit, you don't throw them away. You look for other pieces that fit together in a different way with these two pieces. You might even temporarily abandon the first two pieces and come back to them later, separately. This is what Deb is doing in her "conspiracy" (her word) to find a solution to the question, "What if we had web-based tools to help mission-based organizations use every possible resource and meet every possible need?"
As usual, Ethos Roundtable was a stimulating and informative session/discussion followed by the monthly 501 Tech Club - Boston and hosted by the TechFoundation.
You can get a closer look at some of the services Deb discussed last night by visiting her blog and looking for the May 8th post, "Online capacity mapping and resource matching for nonprofits."
That was Deb Finn's opening line to tell us the topic of last night's Ethos Roundtable. Of course, this is huge and there is no one tool out there right now. It's more like a garden of available tools that, partly through conversations with Deb on this topic, are converging. As Deb herself states, "It's also clear that this could be many separate projects with clever mash-ups and data interchanges. In the age of XML, it does not have to be a monolith with one owner, one web host, and one platform."
The neat thing is, much of this is out there now. The difficult part is, it's not yet organized into anything recognizable. Yet. Getting it into a recognizable shape is why I used the garden analogy. One size does not fit all well. But pulling together a number or tools and placing them in an area where people can pick and choose what fits for them is a rather organic process. What grows, grows. As people use a tool, share it with others, blog about it, find it useful, etc., that process will stimulate growth.
Pulling together existing and new products/services from many organizations to provide another level of service fits another analogy I use when talking about collaboration and developing communities and their organizations. I call it JigSaw Puzzlin' because each organization is like a puzzle piece with form (shape) and function that exists independently. Sometimes several pieces (organizations) get together and form a different shape with form and function. Yet each organization retains its independence and original form and function.
How is this like JigSaw Puzzlin'? When you work a jizsaw puzzle, you pick up pieces, turn them around, look around for other pieces that may fit with the first piece, and so on. If these two pieces don't fit, you don't throw them away. You look for other pieces that fit together in a different way with these two pieces. You might even temporarily abandon the first two pieces and come back to them later, separately. This is what Deb is doing in her "conspiracy" (her word) to find a solution to the question, "What if we had web-based tools to help mission-based organizations use every possible resource and meet every possible need?"
As usual, Ethos Roundtable was a stimulating and informative session/discussion followed by the monthly 501 Tech Club - Boston and hosted by the TechFoundation.
You can get a closer look at some of the services Deb discussed last night by visiting her blog and looking for the May 8th post, "Online capacity mapping and resource matching for nonprofits."
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Verizon Admits Its Default DSL and FiOS Wireless Security "Does Not Provide Good Protection Against a Hacker"
Verizon Admits Its Default DSL and FiOS Wireless Security "Does Not Provide Good Protection Against a Hacker"
I had to repeat the headline because it tells the story so well. Read the article. Read it all the way to the end. Then check your own setup regardless of who your vendor is because you may be just as vulnerable.
What is going on here? You purchase a service. The technician comes in and sets it up. Or you get assistance over the phone setting it up yourself. They tell you you are all set. You feel safe, secure.
You're not. And they know it but don't tell you. Actually, some of them know it but others don't. They should, but they don't.
I'm not surprised. More and more, software companies/services try to "idiot proof" their product so you'll stay out of the inner workings. They want you to think that they've got you covered. They want you to work they way the think you should work. And they do it because they think you're stupid; too stupid to learn what you should know so you can control your software, work the way you need to work, and ensure your own safety online.
If you knew in advance that there are huge security holes in their setups, you'd probably get educated before trusting. Then you wouldn't buy their additional security software or services.
They often write such confusing documentation that even the highly computer-literate end user cannot figure it out easily. Some technical documentation today is pretty good, but much of it is not. You, the end user, don't know if you are actually as stupid as it makes you feel, or if someone wrote it after a six-pack.
So, will Verizon change its default settings to be more secure? Probably not, unless a lot of its customers raise their collective voice and demand it. Will Verizon better train its customer service technicians? Probably not, again, unless... You get it; they don't. Speak up. Demand improvement.
And, if you want to get a better handle on your security settings, one site I can recommend without reservation is Kim Komando,where you can look up all things computers and find sensible, easy to read, accurate information. She makes it easy for the non techie.
Oh, and raise your collective voice to Verizon. Make them provide the "excellent" level of service you are paying for.
I had to repeat the headline because it tells the story so well. Read the article. Read it all the way to the end. Then check your own setup regardless of who your vendor is because you may be just as vulnerable.
What is going on here? You purchase a service. The technician comes in and sets it up. Or you get assistance over the phone setting it up yourself. They tell you you are all set. You feel safe, secure.
You're not. And they know it but don't tell you. Actually, some of them know it but others don't. They should, but they don't.
I'm not surprised. More and more, software companies/services try to "idiot proof" their product so you'll stay out of the inner workings. They want you to think that they've got you covered. They want you to work they way the think you should work. And they do it because they think you're stupid; too stupid to learn what you should know so you can control your software, work the way you need to work, and ensure your own safety online.
If you knew in advance that there are huge security holes in their setups, you'd probably get educated before trusting. Then you wouldn't buy their additional security software or services.
They often write such confusing documentation that even the highly computer-literate end user cannot figure it out easily. Some technical documentation today is pretty good, but much of it is not. You, the end user, don't know if you are actually as stupid as it makes you feel, or if someone wrote it after a six-pack.
So, will Verizon change its default settings to be more secure? Probably not, unless a lot of its customers raise their collective voice and demand it. Will Verizon better train its customer service technicians? Probably not, again, unless... You get it; they don't. Speak up. Demand improvement.
And, if you want to get a better handle on your security settings, one site I can recommend without reservation is Kim Komando,where you can look up all things computers and find sensible, easy to read, accurate information. She makes it easy for the non techie.
Oh, and raise your collective voice to Verizon. Make them provide the "excellent" level of service you are paying for.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Local Harvest
As a brief followup to my post yesterday on hunger, one commenter noted the Local Harvest website. Go to the site, plug in your zipcode, and you'll find where to get locally-grown food and more.
From their site:
"The best organic food is what's grown closest to you. Use our website to find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area, where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies. Want to support this great web site? Shop in our catalog for things you can't find locally!"
From their site:
"The best organic food is what's grown closest to you. Use our website to find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area, where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies. Want to support this great web site? Shop in our catalog for things you can't find locally!"
Friday, June 12, 2009
"Attacking Hunger at Its Roots"
"This morning, one billion people around the world woke up hungry and tonight, they will go to sleep hungry. This issue has not gotten the attention it deserves,..."
It's difficult not to read more when that's the opening of a blog on Huffington Post. It's made even more important to keep reading when part of your job is to see people who are hungry and applying for Food Stamps. That's right. Here, in the US, in Massachusetts, in my community -- people are hungry. More people are living hungry today because of the tight economy, job loss, spending down their retirement funds early, and for many other reasons.
People don't have enough money to pay rent, heat, electric, phone, and also buy food -- nutritious food. Food Stamps are designed to supplement the food budget of low-income residents as part of getting proper nutrition and staying healthy. Alleviating that hunger is as important as economic recovery. Hunger is not just a physical problem. As Clinton states in her post,
"Hunger is not only a physical condition. It is a drain on economic development, a threat to global security, a barrier to health and education reform, and a trap for the millions of people worldwide..."
While Clinton is speaking in a global context, I see it and am working on it in a local context. And that is how it should be. Hunger is a human issue. We need to address it both globally and locally. And because of that, I am part of the Tri-City Hunger Network.
For people in my area (the tri-cities of Everett, Malden, & Medford MA), there are a number of food pantries where people can get basic groceries such as bread, fresh fruit, and vegetables. There are also some soup kitchens that can provide a hot meal. You'll find them on the Hunger Network Calendar on the website of the Cyber Cafe @ Malden Square. If you need food, go there. If you don't need food, can you volunteer?
I remember taking groups of college students to Appalachia in the late 1970s for spring break to help poor people in rural America. While there, students were exposed to poverty in a new context and gained insight into their own view of the world. When we returned to campus, they were able to "see" the poverty in their own community. Many immediately joined other volunteers at local soup kitchens and in other ways used their new-found "vision" to do what they could.
Hungry people are in every community. If you don't see it, maybe your vision of the world around you needs some fine tuning. You can start by asking at your local faith organization. Are they doing anything? Why not? What about your local or regional Community Action Program/Agency (CAP or CAA)? Do you know who or where they are? In MA, go to MassCAP to find it. If you're in another state, you can always ask MassCAP for a referral to an agency in your state; they may know it. Or Google CAP or CAA agencies for your state. You can also find information here.
Hunger is real and it's all around us. Let's do something about it.
For more information about Food Stamps, Project Bread is a great resource. Your area DTA office manages the Food Stamp program -- now called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) -- which is funded through funds from the Department of Agriculture.
It's difficult not to read more when that's the opening of a blog on Huffington Post. It's made even more important to keep reading when part of your job is to see people who are hungry and applying for Food Stamps. That's right. Here, in the US, in Massachusetts, in my community -- people are hungry. More people are living hungry today because of the tight economy, job loss, spending down their retirement funds early, and for many other reasons.
People don't have enough money to pay rent, heat, electric, phone, and also buy food -- nutritious food. Food Stamps are designed to supplement the food budget of low-income residents as part of getting proper nutrition and staying healthy. Alleviating that hunger is as important as economic recovery. Hunger is not just a physical problem. As Clinton states in her post,
"Hunger is not only a physical condition. It is a drain on economic development, a threat to global security, a barrier to health and education reform, and a trap for the millions of people worldwide..."
While Clinton is speaking in a global context, I see it and am working on it in a local context. And that is how it should be. Hunger is a human issue. We need to address it both globally and locally. And because of that, I am part of the Tri-City Hunger Network.
For people in my area (the tri-cities of Everett, Malden, & Medford MA), there are a number of food pantries where people can get basic groceries such as bread, fresh fruit, and vegetables. There are also some soup kitchens that can provide a hot meal. You'll find them on the Hunger Network Calendar on the website of the Cyber Cafe @ Malden Square. If you need food, go there. If you don't need food, can you volunteer?
I remember taking groups of college students to Appalachia in the late 1970s for spring break to help poor people in rural America. While there, students were exposed to poverty in a new context and gained insight into their own view of the world. When we returned to campus, they were able to "see" the poverty in their own community. Many immediately joined other volunteers at local soup kitchens and in other ways used their new-found "vision" to do what they could.
Hungry people are in every community. If you don't see it, maybe your vision of the world around you needs some fine tuning. You can start by asking at your local faith organization. Are they doing anything? Why not? What about your local or regional Community Action Program/Agency (CAP or CAA)? Do you know who or where they are? In MA, go to MassCAP to find it. If you're in another state, you can always ask MassCAP for a referral to an agency in your state; they may know it. Or Google CAP or CAA agencies for your state. You can also find information here.
Hunger is real and it's all around us. Let's do something about it.
For more information about Food Stamps, Project Bread is a great resource. Your area DTA office manages the Food Stamp program -- now called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) -- which is funded through funds from the Department of Agriculture.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Does a College Degree Help Anyone?
David Leonhardt's article, The Value of Education in a Recession, in the Wall Street Journal echoes what I have always espoused -- getting an education is worth the effort. While college graduates have been hurt by the recession, like almost everyone else, 4-year college graduates earn about 54% more than those without a college degree. The unemployment of 4-year college graduates is also lower than those with less education.
For anyone who wants to know how getting a degree is going to get them a job, my answer is, "that's not the purpose of a degree." While getting a degree does not guarantee anyone a job, not having a degree is often a huge roadblock to getting a job. That's the difference. The degree doesn't get you the job, but the lack of it becomes a barrier...a huge barrier.
The value of a degree isn't necessarily apparent right away. I taught part-time, evening students at the college/university level for more than 20 years. A common question that arose was, "Why do I have to learn this to get a degree, how is it going to help me on the job?" It was often difficult to get that student over the hurdle of understanding the difference between job training and an overall education. Their goal was to get a degree so they could get a raise or move into a higher-level position in their current organization. To them, the degree was about job safety, security, or advancement.
Sometimes students would come in with the mindset that they could get the syllabus, write some papers, and show up every few weeks to "catch up." They had family demands. Their work lives were busy. They often worked late to keep up. They didn't have time for a demanding college course or professor. Education wasn't their priority. Getting a degree so they could advance in the organization was their priority. Their goal in getting a degree often conflicted with my goal of teaching a subject and, more importantly, educating them.
I also have a long history in providing training, so I do know the difference between job training and education. My basic philosophy is, "Teacher or Educator?: you teach a subject, you educate a mind." Job training is about teaching a subject; getting someone ready to perform a task or series of tasks. Education is about helping people learn how to learn, broadening their perspective on a variety of subjects, and developing the capacity to learn. Hey, even old dogs can learn new tricks -- just ask Raymond, our 12 year old Labrador Retriever. He's trained us well.
It's interesting to see how much of my own education has come into play over the years. Many things I "learned" that I thought I would never use have helped me incredibly in my work and personal lives. But the most important thing that college degree did was to put me on a path of choices about when, where, and for whom I work. I have multiple choices because I can compete for jobs and have an advantage over people without a degree.
That credential of a degree has opened doors. I still have to compete for the job once I get in the door, but the door is open to me. In advising job seekers, I have heard repeatedly from some people that degree preferred really means, "don't bother applying if you don't have a degree." While I don't believe this 100%, I do know that when there are 100+ applicants for every job opening, the quickest way to trim down the list is to drop everyone who applied and didn't have a degree. If the remaining pile doesn't look good, then they might go back and look through the drop list for someone without a degree. But if the first pile has good candidates, they never seem to get back to that circular file.
There are some job areas where a college degree doesn't seem to make much difference in salary, but those areas are diminishing. If you can, get the degree. Start at a community college. Take one or two courses at night to get started. Apply for scholarships and financial aid. Do what you can to move in that direction. Get your Associates Degree (2 years of full-time college study). Once you get into the rhythm of studying and working, just keep going. It takes time, but it is possible. I know. I worked full time, got my undergraduate and graduate degrees at night, and haven't stopped studying since. Even while teaching, I took courses just to learn about that topic. I still attend workshops and seminars on many topics. I know it's not leading to another degree, but I have the basic credentialing and use training to keep my skills updated and broaden what I know. This helps me remain competitive in the job market.
Does a college degree help anyone? Yes, it does. And not having a college degree can actually hinder you. If you haven't "studied" in many years, or were a marginal performer in high school, at least try to take some training courses or preparatory college-level courses. Get started. Do it now. You'll thank yourself later.
For anyone who wants to know how getting a degree is going to get them a job, my answer is, "that's not the purpose of a degree." While getting a degree does not guarantee anyone a job, not having a degree is often a huge roadblock to getting a job. That's the difference. The degree doesn't get you the job, but the lack of it becomes a barrier...a huge barrier.
The value of a degree isn't necessarily apparent right away. I taught part-time, evening students at the college/university level for more than 20 years. A common question that arose was, "Why do I have to learn this to get a degree, how is it going to help me on the job?" It was often difficult to get that student over the hurdle of understanding the difference between job training and an overall education. Their goal was to get a degree so they could get a raise or move into a higher-level position in their current organization. To them, the degree was about job safety, security, or advancement.
Sometimes students would come in with the mindset that they could get the syllabus, write some papers, and show up every few weeks to "catch up." They had family demands. Their work lives were busy. They often worked late to keep up. They didn't have time for a demanding college course or professor. Education wasn't their priority. Getting a degree so they could advance in the organization was their priority. Their goal in getting a degree often conflicted with my goal of teaching a subject and, more importantly, educating them.
I also have a long history in providing training, so I do know the difference between job training and education. My basic philosophy is, "Teacher or Educator?: you teach a subject, you educate a mind." Job training is about teaching a subject; getting someone ready to perform a task or series of tasks. Education is about helping people learn how to learn, broadening their perspective on a variety of subjects, and developing the capacity to learn. Hey, even old dogs can learn new tricks -- just ask Raymond, our 12 year old Labrador Retriever. He's trained us well.
It's interesting to see how much of my own education has come into play over the years. Many things I "learned" that I thought I would never use have helped me incredibly in my work and personal lives. But the most important thing that college degree did was to put me on a path of choices about when, where, and for whom I work. I have multiple choices because I can compete for jobs and have an advantage over people without a degree.
That credential of a degree has opened doors. I still have to compete for the job once I get in the door, but the door is open to me. In advising job seekers, I have heard repeatedly from some people that degree preferred really means, "don't bother applying if you don't have a degree." While I don't believe this 100%, I do know that when there are 100+ applicants for every job opening, the quickest way to trim down the list is to drop everyone who applied and didn't have a degree. If the remaining pile doesn't look good, then they might go back and look through the drop list for someone without a degree. But if the first pile has good candidates, they never seem to get back to that circular file.
There are some job areas where a college degree doesn't seem to make much difference in salary, but those areas are diminishing. If you can, get the degree. Start at a community college. Take one or two courses at night to get started. Apply for scholarships and financial aid. Do what you can to move in that direction. Get your Associates Degree (2 years of full-time college study). Once you get into the rhythm of studying and working, just keep going. It takes time, but it is possible. I know. I worked full time, got my undergraduate and graduate degrees at night, and haven't stopped studying since. Even while teaching, I took courses just to learn about that topic. I still attend workshops and seminars on many topics. I know it's not leading to another degree, but I have the basic credentialing and use training to keep my skills updated and broaden what I know. This helps me remain competitive in the job market.
Does a college degree help anyone? Yes, it does. And not having a college degree can actually hinder you. If you haven't "studied" in many years, or were a marginal performer in high school, at least try to take some training courses or preparatory college-level courses. Get started. Do it now. You'll thank yourself later.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)