Thursday, December 23, 2010
ETFs With Little Volume but Big Returns, Revisited - Seeking Alpha
ETFs With Little Volume but Big Returns, Revisited - Seeking Alpha low volume etf and etn info
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
How the new tax law may affect you - Fidelity Investments
How the new tax law may affect you - Fidelity InvestmentsWhat it means for your take-home pay, investments, and more.
How the new tax laws may affect you
After weeks of heated Congressional negotiations on Capitol Hill, President Obama has signed the tax bill into law. The new law temporarily extends the 2001 and 2003 federal income tax rate cuts, extends unemployment insurance for 13 months, provides new payroll tax breaks, reinstates the estate tax, and more.
The good news: The new law will give taxpayers a bit of clarity—and an opportunity to plan with relative confidence knowing that the playing field won’t change dramatically, at least for two years. But beyond that, an increase in the Medicare tax for upper-income Americans is slated for 2013. And more changes are likely in the future, given the pressure to raise revenues to reduce the deficit, and talk of sweeping tax reform.
“Passage of this tax law ensures that individuals at all income levels won’t face an automatic tax increase in January,” says Shahira Knight, Fidelity’s vice president of government relations. “The law provides taxpayers with some certainty, but Congress will be back at the table having the same debate in two years”
So what can you do now? Let’s take a look at how the new law may impact you in four key areas: your take-home pay, your investments, your estate and gifting plans, and, if you’re over age 70½, qualified charitable distributions from your IRA. We’ll summarize what’s changed, and what you should be thinking about for both year-end and longer-term tax planning.
One important caveat: An extension of the minimum required distribution (MRD) suspension is not part of the new tax law, so retirees must take applicable MRDs for 2010 or face a hefty penalty.
New tax law
How it affects your take-home pay
NEW—Payroll tax relief: There is now a 2 percentage point reduction in an employee’s share of the Social Security portion of the FICA tax, from 6.2% to 4.2%, in 2011. So, if you make $80,000 a year, you could take home an additional $1,600 a year in 2011.
What to consider now:
* Increase any tax-advantaged retirement account contributions: If you are not already maximizing pretax contributions to your 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, or other workplace savings plan, consider increasing your payroll deduction by 2%, or at least enough to garner the full company match. In 2010 and 2011 you can contribute up to $16,500 to 401(k) plans (up to $22,000 if you’re 50 or older), and $5,000 to IRAs ($6,000 for ages 50 and older). Fidelity believes this is a smart plan of action, unless you have high interest-rate credit card debt. If so, consider using the extra money from the payroll tax relief to pay down your plastic first.
What to consider going forward:
* Automatic increases in your workplace savings plan: If you are still not maximizing your workplace savings contributions, consider increasing automatic payroll deductions in 2011.
* If you have a 401(k) or 403(b) with Fidelity, you can review and increase you contribution rate, or sign up for automatic increases, on NetBenefits (log in required).
Extended—2001 and 2003 income tax cuts: The new tax law provides a two-year extension of the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era income tax cuts (through 2012), regardless of a person’s income level. This means there will be no change in the income tax rates for the next two years although the alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch extends only through 2011 and is not indexed for inflation in 2011.
What to consider now:
* A Roth IRA conversion: You may want to consider converting a traditional IRA or other eligible retirement balance to a Roth IRA1 before December 31, 2010. For conversions made in 2010, because of a special one-time tax rule, you can elect to either pay the entire tax bill on your 2010 return or pay it over the next two years by splitting the taxable income generated evenly between your 2011 and 2012 tax returns. The extension of the current tax rates may make the latter a better option. However, although spreading out the tax bill from your conversion over two years may sound appealing, there are other considerations to take into account, so you should carefully weigh the pros and cons. Read: Two-year tax window on Roth conversions.
* Your income and deductions: Tax advisers often suggest that those who itemize deductions should defer income into future tax years while accelerating deductions into the current tax year. While you may end up with virtually the same tax bill, you would pay it at a later date. In the meantime, you may be able to benefit from the use of that money. Since tax rates will stay the same next year, this popular year-end tax move may be helpful in 2010 and 2011 as well, with one important exception. If you are or may be subject to the AMT, you may be better off doing the opposite. As always, you should consult your tax adviser. And don’t dally: You only have until December 31, 2010, to make these moves.
Extended—AMT relief: There is now a two-year extension (through 2011) of the AMT "patch".
How it affects your investments
Extended—Capital gains tax: The top rate on long-term capital gains will remain at 15% for the next two years.
Extended—Qualified dividends tax: The top rate for qualified dividends—those on certain stocks held longer than 60 days—will remain at 15% for the next two years.
What to consider now:
* Employ an effective tax-loss harvesting strategy: Tax-loss harvesting is the practice of selling investments that have lost value to offset current-and future-year capital gains. Unlike one-time or occasional-loss sales, however, a systematic tax-loss harvesting strategy requires diligent investment tracking and detailed tax accounting. Read: Reduce the tax hit on your investments.
* Exploit the 0% capital gains rate: You also may have the opportunity to eliminate taxes on the capital gains you realize from taxable accounts. In 2010, taxpayers in the 10% and 15% federal income tax brackets can realize long-term capital gains (and qualified dividends) without triggering capital gains taxes. (In 2010, the 15% bracket tops out at $68,000 of taxable income for married couples filing jointly.) The result: If your taxable income falls into the two lowest tax brackets, selling stocks held longer than a year may be a highly tax-efficient way to generate cash flow. If you’re retired, this strategy may be most advantageous if you have a relatively high proportion of your retirement assets in taxable accounts.
What to consider going forward:
* Plan ahead for future tax increases: No one can predict how or when tax rates might rise or what form proposed tax reforms may take. But at least one new tax is already slated to hit the net investment income of upper-income taxpayers in 2013: an additional 3.8% Medicare tax, which will affect married couples filing jointly with a modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of more than $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers). The tax will apply to the lesser of net investment income or MAGI over the threshold. Investment income would include income from interest, dividends, capital gains, annuities, rents, and royalties.
It’s not too soon to begin preparing for this 2013 tax change. You’ll want to consider maximizing savings in tax-advantaged accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s, because withdrawals from them will not be included when determining investment income for the new Medicare tax. Further, qualifying Roth IRA withdrawals aren’t considered investment income or an addition to your MAGI under current law—possibly making conversions and contributions to Roth-type accounts more relevant for the near term. If you don’t have a Roth IRA, you may want to consider converting to one. Get the details in Viewpoints: Tax-savvy Roth IRA conversions.
How it affects small businesses and the self-employed
NEW—Business Expensing: The new law provides for 100% expensing of qualified capital investments in 2011 and 50% expensing in 2012.
How it affects estate planning and gifting
NEW—Estate tax rate and exclusion: The new law reinstates the estate tax in 2011 and 2012 at a maximum rate of 35% with a $5 million exemption per person. This compares to a 45% maximum rate and $3.5 million exclusion in 2009. The new rules will sunset after 2012. Beginning in 2013, there will be a $1 million per person exclusion with a 55% estate and gift tax rate unless further legislation is enacted.
Here are some additional estate tax changes you should know about:
* Portability. New portability rules allow any unused exemption to be passed to a surviving spouse, so a married couple can exempt up to $10 million.
* Estates of decedents who died in 2010. The new law gives executors of these estates a choice: distribute assets to heirs estate-tax-free but with a carryover basis (generally the original purchase price), or step up the basis to the market value (generally at time of death) and pay the 35% rate on anything above the $5 million exemption. A step-up in basis means the value of an appreciated asset is readjusted at a higher market value for tax purposes upon inheritance versus what the value of the asset was when it was originally purchased.
* Gift Tax exemption. The new law reunifies the federal estate tax exemption and the federal gift tax exemption. This means that the new lifetime gift tax exemption is $5 million per person ($10 million per couple) beginning in 2011. Taxable gifts made in 2011 and 2012 will be taxed at the rate of 35%.
* Generation Skipping Transfer Tax (GSTT). Beginning in 2011, the generation skipping transfer tax exemption will also be $5 million per person ($10 million per couple) with a 35% tax rate. Note: The GSTT is not portable.
* Extension of time for certain filings. The new law extends the time to file certain estate and gift tax returns to nine months after the enactment of the new law.
What to consider now:
* Make tax-smart charitable year-end contributions if you haven’t already. For this year, given the stock market’s gains, donating long-term appreciated securities may be a particularly tax-savvy strategy. As a general rule, donations of long-term appreciated securities (either stock or mutual funds) directly to a qualified charity are deductible at their fair market value on the date of contribution, and you don’t pay capital gains taxes on the donated security. For those considering a major gift in 2010 (or 2011), combining a charitable gift with a Roth IRA conversion may help offset the tax cost of the conversion and perhaps allow you to convert a larger amount at a lower tax cost. Read: Tax-savvy Roth IRA Conversions.
* Consider generation skipping transfers. The generation skipping transfer tax remains repealed for 2010. Individuals thinking of making gifts to grandchildren, gifts that would otherwise be subject to GST tax, have until December, 31, 2010, to complete these gifts.
* Weigh the tax elections for 2010 estates. Executors of 2010 estates over $5 million with highly appreciated assets should consider whether it may be better to subject the estate to the new law or choose the zero estate tax law of 2010. If you choose the former, the first $5 million of estate assets will be exempt from federal estate taxes, but any amount above $5 million may be subject to estate tax. However, the entire estate will receive a full step up in basis. If the latter is chosen, no federal estate tax will be assessed on the estate, but all of the estate assets may not receive a step-up in basis. In this case, the executor can allocate $3 million in basis adjustments for assets passing to a surviving spouse, and another $1.3 million in basis adjustments to property passing to a non-spouse. This is a complex decision. Contact your attorney, tax adviser, or your Fidelity Representative to understand your options.
What to consider going forward:
* Set up a meeting with your tax adviser or estate planning attorney to review your estate plan and make any necessary changes.
* Consider a Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT): A Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT) is an irrevocable trust that pays a fixed annuity to the grantor for a defined period, then pays the remainder to a non-charitable beneficiary. Contrary to expectations, the new law did not restrict GRATs. And, with the increased gift tax exemption, a grantor can now potentially put even more money into a GRAT without having to pay gift taxes. Current low interest rates are also beneficial to GRATs, because they help increase the value of the annuity while lowering the value of the remainder interest. So, the grantor may potentially use even less of the new gift tax exemption. As always, consult your Fidelity representative or speak with your attorney or tax adviser before making any decisions.
How it affects retirees
Extended—qualified charitable distributions (QCDs) from IRAs: The new tax law extends provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 that allow investors age 70½ or older to make a qualified distribution of up to $100,000 from an IRA directly to a qualified charity for both 2010 and 2011.
Not extended—Minimum Required Distribution (MRD) suspension: The new tax law does not extend the 2009 suspension of MRDs. Retirees are generally required to take MRDs from their retirement accounts for the year in which they turn 70½, and all subsequent years, by December 31. Failure to comply with this IRS regulation could result in a 50% penalty on the amount that should have been distributed.
What to consider now:
* Make sure you take an MRD in 2010. If you’re 70½ or over, take a moment to ensure you’ve met your MRD obligation for 2010. If you were born before July 1, 1939, your 2010 MRD deadline is December 31, 2010. If you were born between July 1, 1939, and June 30, 1940, your deadline is April 1, 2011. Just remember, you’ll have to take two MRDs in 2011 (one for 2010 and one for 2011).
* Think about QCDs and MRDs together. Qualified charitable distributions from IRAs made directly to qualifying charities count toward any MRD. For example, if you have a $75,000 MRD for 2010, you can make an IRA distribution of up to $100,000 directly to a qualifying charity and $75,000 of that $100,000 is counted as your MRD.
* One other important note: Any QCDs made through January 2011 can count towards your 2010 MRD, but if you already took your MRD in 2010, it appears you cannot take advantage of the QCD this year. However, if you still have to take your 2010 RMD, you may make a 2010 QCD and have it count toward your MRD even if you don’t complete it until next year.
What to consider going forward:
* QCDs will count as MRDs in 2011, so you may want to consider making two QCDs: one in 2010 and one in 2011.
* Talk to your tax adviser about IRA strategies for 2011. If you are a high-net-worth investor with high IRA balances, next year may be a tax-efficient time to give away some of that money.
Next steps
* Learn more about tax-advantaged retirement accounts and charitable giving options for year-end.
* Make a plan to attend a tax-smart investing seminar in the New Year to help you plan for future taxes.
* Review tax-savings strategies in our Tax Center.
* If you have a 401(k) or 403(b) with Fidelity, you can review and increase you contribution rate, or sign up for automatic increases, on NetBenefits (log in required).
* Speak to a Fidelity representative at 1-800-343-3548.
Views expressed are as of 12/17/2010 and may change based on market and other conditions. Unless otherwise noted, the opinions provided are not necessarily those of Fidelity Investments.
The tax and estate planning information contained herein is general in nature, is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or tax advice. Fidelity does not provide legal or tax advice. Fidelity cannot guarantee that such information is accurate, complete, or timely. Laws of a particular state or laws that may be applicable to a particular situation may have an impact on the applicability, accuracy, or completeness of such information. Federal and state laws and regulations are complex and are subject to change. Changes in such laws and regulations may have a material impact on pre- and/or after-tax investment results. Fidelity makes no warranties with regard to such information or results obtained by its use. Fidelity disclaims any liability arising out of your use of, or any tax position taken in reliance on, such information. Always consult an attorney or tax professional regarding your specific legal or tax situation.
1. A distribution from a Roth IRA is tax free and penalty free provided that the five-year aging requirement has been satisfied and at least one of the following conditions is met: you reach age 59½, die, become disabled, or make a qualified first-time home purchase.
How the new tax laws may affect you
After weeks of heated Congressional negotiations on Capitol Hill, President Obama has signed the tax bill into law. The new law temporarily extends the 2001 and 2003 federal income tax rate cuts, extends unemployment insurance for 13 months, provides new payroll tax breaks, reinstates the estate tax, and more.
The good news: The new law will give taxpayers a bit of clarity—and an opportunity to plan with relative confidence knowing that the playing field won’t change dramatically, at least for two years. But beyond that, an increase in the Medicare tax for upper-income Americans is slated for 2013. And more changes are likely in the future, given the pressure to raise revenues to reduce the deficit, and talk of sweeping tax reform.
“Passage of this tax law ensures that individuals at all income levels won’t face an automatic tax increase in January,” says Shahira Knight, Fidelity’s vice president of government relations. “The law provides taxpayers with some certainty, but Congress will be back at the table having the same debate in two years”
So what can you do now? Let’s take a look at how the new law may impact you in four key areas: your take-home pay, your investments, your estate and gifting plans, and, if you’re over age 70½, qualified charitable distributions from your IRA. We’ll summarize what’s changed, and what you should be thinking about for both year-end and longer-term tax planning.
One important caveat: An extension of the minimum required distribution (MRD) suspension is not part of the new tax law, so retirees must take applicable MRDs for 2010 or face a hefty penalty.
New tax law
How it affects your take-home pay
NEW—Payroll tax relief: There is now a 2 percentage point reduction in an employee’s share of the Social Security portion of the FICA tax, from 6.2% to 4.2%, in 2011. So, if you make $80,000 a year, you could take home an additional $1,600 a year in 2011.
What to consider now:
* Increase any tax-advantaged retirement account contributions: If you are not already maximizing pretax contributions to your 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, or other workplace savings plan, consider increasing your payroll deduction by 2%, or at least enough to garner the full company match. In 2010 and 2011 you can contribute up to $16,500 to 401(k) plans (up to $22,000 if you’re 50 or older), and $5,000 to IRAs ($6,000 for ages 50 and older). Fidelity believes this is a smart plan of action, unless you have high interest-rate credit card debt. If so, consider using the extra money from the payroll tax relief to pay down your plastic first.
What to consider going forward:
* Automatic increases in your workplace savings plan: If you are still not maximizing your workplace savings contributions, consider increasing automatic payroll deductions in 2011.
* If you have a 401(k) or 403(b) with Fidelity, you can review and increase you contribution rate, or sign up for automatic increases, on NetBenefits (log in required).
Extended—2001 and 2003 income tax cuts: The new tax law provides a two-year extension of the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era income tax cuts (through 2012), regardless of a person’s income level. This means there will be no change in the income tax rates for the next two years although the alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch extends only through 2011 and is not indexed for inflation in 2011.
What to consider now:
* A Roth IRA conversion: You may want to consider converting a traditional IRA or other eligible retirement balance to a Roth IRA1 before December 31, 2010. For conversions made in 2010, because of a special one-time tax rule, you can elect to either pay the entire tax bill on your 2010 return or pay it over the next two years by splitting the taxable income generated evenly between your 2011 and 2012 tax returns. The extension of the current tax rates may make the latter a better option. However, although spreading out the tax bill from your conversion over two years may sound appealing, there are other considerations to take into account, so you should carefully weigh the pros and cons. Read: Two-year tax window on Roth conversions.
* Your income and deductions: Tax advisers often suggest that those who itemize deductions should defer income into future tax years while accelerating deductions into the current tax year. While you may end up with virtually the same tax bill, you would pay it at a later date. In the meantime, you may be able to benefit from the use of that money. Since tax rates will stay the same next year, this popular year-end tax move may be helpful in 2010 and 2011 as well, with one important exception. If you are or may be subject to the AMT, you may be better off doing the opposite. As always, you should consult your tax adviser. And don’t dally: You only have until December 31, 2010, to make these moves.
Extended—AMT relief: There is now a two-year extension (through 2011) of the AMT "patch".
How it affects your investments
Extended—Capital gains tax: The top rate on long-term capital gains will remain at 15% for the next two years.
Extended—Qualified dividends tax: The top rate for qualified dividends—those on certain stocks held longer than 60 days—will remain at 15% for the next two years.
What to consider now:
* Employ an effective tax-loss harvesting strategy: Tax-loss harvesting is the practice of selling investments that have lost value to offset current-and future-year capital gains. Unlike one-time or occasional-loss sales, however, a systematic tax-loss harvesting strategy requires diligent investment tracking and detailed tax accounting. Read: Reduce the tax hit on your investments.
* Exploit the 0% capital gains rate: You also may have the opportunity to eliminate taxes on the capital gains you realize from taxable accounts. In 2010, taxpayers in the 10% and 15% federal income tax brackets can realize long-term capital gains (and qualified dividends) without triggering capital gains taxes. (In 2010, the 15% bracket tops out at $68,000 of taxable income for married couples filing jointly.) The result: If your taxable income falls into the two lowest tax brackets, selling stocks held longer than a year may be a highly tax-efficient way to generate cash flow. If you’re retired, this strategy may be most advantageous if you have a relatively high proportion of your retirement assets in taxable accounts.
What to consider going forward:
* Plan ahead for future tax increases: No one can predict how or when tax rates might rise or what form proposed tax reforms may take. But at least one new tax is already slated to hit the net investment income of upper-income taxpayers in 2013: an additional 3.8% Medicare tax, which will affect married couples filing jointly with a modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of more than $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers). The tax will apply to the lesser of net investment income or MAGI over the threshold. Investment income would include income from interest, dividends, capital gains, annuities, rents, and royalties.
It’s not too soon to begin preparing for this 2013 tax change. You’ll want to consider maximizing savings in tax-advantaged accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s, because withdrawals from them will not be included when determining investment income for the new Medicare tax. Further, qualifying Roth IRA withdrawals aren’t considered investment income or an addition to your MAGI under current law—possibly making conversions and contributions to Roth-type accounts more relevant for the near term. If you don’t have a Roth IRA, you may want to consider converting to one. Get the details in Viewpoints: Tax-savvy Roth IRA conversions.
How it affects small businesses and the self-employed
NEW—Business Expensing: The new law provides for 100% expensing of qualified capital investments in 2011 and 50% expensing in 2012.
How it affects estate planning and gifting
NEW—Estate tax rate and exclusion: The new law reinstates the estate tax in 2011 and 2012 at a maximum rate of 35% with a $5 million exemption per person. This compares to a 45% maximum rate and $3.5 million exclusion in 2009. The new rules will sunset after 2012. Beginning in 2013, there will be a $1 million per person exclusion with a 55% estate and gift tax rate unless further legislation is enacted.
Here are some additional estate tax changes you should know about:
* Portability. New portability rules allow any unused exemption to be passed to a surviving spouse, so a married couple can exempt up to $10 million.
* Estates of decedents who died in 2010. The new law gives executors of these estates a choice: distribute assets to heirs estate-tax-free but with a carryover basis (generally the original purchase price), or step up the basis to the market value (generally at time of death) and pay the 35% rate on anything above the $5 million exemption. A step-up in basis means the value of an appreciated asset is readjusted at a higher market value for tax purposes upon inheritance versus what the value of the asset was when it was originally purchased.
* Gift Tax exemption. The new law reunifies the federal estate tax exemption and the federal gift tax exemption. This means that the new lifetime gift tax exemption is $5 million per person ($10 million per couple) beginning in 2011. Taxable gifts made in 2011 and 2012 will be taxed at the rate of 35%.
* Generation Skipping Transfer Tax (GSTT). Beginning in 2011, the generation skipping transfer tax exemption will also be $5 million per person ($10 million per couple) with a 35% tax rate. Note: The GSTT is not portable.
* Extension of time for certain filings. The new law extends the time to file certain estate and gift tax returns to nine months after the enactment of the new law.
What to consider now:
* Make tax-smart charitable year-end contributions if you haven’t already. For this year, given the stock market’s gains, donating long-term appreciated securities may be a particularly tax-savvy strategy. As a general rule, donations of long-term appreciated securities (either stock or mutual funds) directly to a qualified charity are deductible at their fair market value on the date of contribution, and you don’t pay capital gains taxes on the donated security. For those considering a major gift in 2010 (or 2011), combining a charitable gift with a Roth IRA conversion may help offset the tax cost of the conversion and perhaps allow you to convert a larger amount at a lower tax cost. Read: Tax-savvy Roth IRA Conversions.
* Consider generation skipping transfers. The generation skipping transfer tax remains repealed for 2010. Individuals thinking of making gifts to grandchildren, gifts that would otherwise be subject to GST tax, have until December, 31, 2010, to complete these gifts.
* Weigh the tax elections for 2010 estates. Executors of 2010 estates over $5 million with highly appreciated assets should consider whether it may be better to subject the estate to the new law or choose the zero estate tax law of 2010. If you choose the former, the first $5 million of estate assets will be exempt from federal estate taxes, but any amount above $5 million may be subject to estate tax. However, the entire estate will receive a full step up in basis. If the latter is chosen, no federal estate tax will be assessed on the estate, but all of the estate assets may not receive a step-up in basis. In this case, the executor can allocate $3 million in basis adjustments for assets passing to a surviving spouse, and another $1.3 million in basis adjustments to property passing to a non-spouse. This is a complex decision. Contact your attorney, tax adviser, or your Fidelity Representative to understand your options.
What to consider going forward:
* Set up a meeting with your tax adviser or estate planning attorney to review your estate plan and make any necessary changes.
* Consider a Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT): A Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT) is an irrevocable trust that pays a fixed annuity to the grantor for a defined period, then pays the remainder to a non-charitable beneficiary. Contrary to expectations, the new law did not restrict GRATs. And, with the increased gift tax exemption, a grantor can now potentially put even more money into a GRAT without having to pay gift taxes. Current low interest rates are also beneficial to GRATs, because they help increase the value of the annuity while lowering the value of the remainder interest. So, the grantor may potentially use even less of the new gift tax exemption. As always, consult your Fidelity representative or speak with your attorney or tax adviser before making any decisions.
How it affects retirees
Extended—qualified charitable distributions (QCDs) from IRAs: The new tax law extends provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 that allow investors age 70½ or older to make a qualified distribution of up to $100,000 from an IRA directly to a qualified charity for both 2010 and 2011.
Not extended—Minimum Required Distribution (MRD) suspension: The new tax law does not extend the 2009 suspension of MRDs. Retirees are generally required to take MRDs from their retirement accounts for the year in which they turn 70½, and all subsequent years, by December 31. Failure to comply with this IRS regulation could result in a 50% penalty on the amount that should have been distributed.
What to consider now:
* Make sure you take an MRD in 2010. If you’re 70½ or over, take a moment to ensure you’ve met your MRD obligation for 2010. If you were born before July 1, 1939, your 2010 MRD deadline is December 31, 2010. If you were born between July 1, 1939, and June 30, 1940, your deadline is April 1, 2011. Just remember, you’ll have to take two MRDs in 2011 (one for 2010 and one for 2011).
* Think about QCDs and MRDs together. Qualified charitable distributions from IRAs made directly to qualifying charities count toward any MRD. For example, if you have a $75,000 MRD for 2010, you can make an IRA distribution of up to $100,000 directly to a qualifying charity and $75,000 of that $100,000 is counted as your MRD.
* One other important note: Any QCDs made through January 2011 can count towards your 2010 MRD, but if you already took your MRD in 2010, it appears you cannot take advantage of the QCD this year. However, if you still have to take your 2010 RMD, you may make a 2010 QCD and have it count toward your MRD even if you don’t complete it until next year.
What to consider going forward:
* QCDs will count as MRDs in 2011, so you may want to consider making two QCDs: one in 2010 and one in 2011.
* Talk to your tax adviser about IRA strategies for 2011. If you are a high-net-worth investor with high IRA balances, next year may be a tax-efficient time to give away some of that money.
Next steps
* Learn more about tax-advantaged retirement accounts and charitable giving options for year-end.
* Make a plan to attend a tax-smart investing seminar in the New Year to help you plan for future taxes.
* Review tax-savings strategies in our Tax Center.
* If you have a 401(k) or 403(b) with Fidelity, you can review and increase you contribution rate, or sign up for automatic increases, on NetBenefits (log in required).
* Speak to a Fidelity representative at 1-800-343-3548.
Views expressed are as of 12/17/2010 and may change based on market and other conditions. Unless otherwise noted, the opinions provided are not necessarily those of Fidelity Investments.
The tax and estate planning information contained herein is general in nature, is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or tax advice. Fidelity does not provide legal or tax advice. Fidelity cannot guarantee that such information is accurate, complete, or timely. Laws of a particular state or laws that may be applicable to a particular situation may have an impact on the applicability, accuracy, or completeness of such information. Federal and state laws and regulations are complex and are subject to change. Changes in such laws and regulations may have a material impact on pre- and/or after-tax investment results. Fidelity makes no warranties with regard to such information or results obtained by its use. Fidelity disclaims any liability arising out of your use of, or any tax position taken in reliance on, such information. Always consult an attorney or tax professional regarding your specific legal or tax situation.
1. A distribution from a Roth IRA is tax free and penalty free provided that the five-year aging requirement has been satisfied and at least one of the following conditions is met: you reach age 59½, die, become disabled, or make a qualified first-time home purchase.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Jefferies: Amazing shale economics 'unlike anything ever seen'
Jefferies: Amazing shale economics 'unlike anything ever seen': "Dec 20, 2010
Jefferies: Amazing shale economics 'unlike anything ever seen'"
Jefferies: Amazing shale economics 'unlike anything ever seen'"
Jefferies: Amazing shale economics 'unlike anything ever seen'
Jefferies: Amazing shale economics 'unlike anything ever seen': "Dec 20, 2010
Jefferies: Amazing shale economics 'unlike anything ever seen'"
Jefferies: Amazing shale economics 'unlike anything ever seen'"
Saturday, December 18, 2010
…You Might Be a Gold Bug. The Reformed Broker
…You Might Be a Gold Bug. The Reformed Broker * If you consider Diversification to mean a portfolio consisting of gold bullion, gold coins, gold bars and gold futures contracts...you might be a gold bug.
* If you've been growing your beard out since Obama was elected...you might be a gold bug.
* If the family dog's name is Hyperinflation ...you might be a gold bug.
* If you have a poster of a shirtless Peter Schiff hanging over your bed...you might be a gold bug.
* If you spent the summer up at the cabin storing your own urine for it's nutrients...you might be a gold bug.
* If every single stock in your brokerage account contains the word "mining" in it's name...you might be a gold bug.
* If you get your financial advice from the Glenn Beck show...you might be a gold bug.
* If you start off many sentences with the phrase "Once gold breaks 1000," ...you might be a gold bug.
* If your IRA jingles when it hits the floor...you might be a gold bug.
* If the name of your investment club is AU Guys...you might be a gold bug.
* If the panic room you've just installed has it's own panic room...you might be a gold bug.
* If the birthday cards you send to friends and relatives include warnings about the danger of fiat currencies...you might be a gold bug.
Buffett who said he had only two rules: 1) Never lose money and 2) see rule number 1!
* If you've been growing your beard out since Obama was elected...you might be a gold bug.
* If the family dog's name is Hyperinflation ...you might be a gold bug.
* If you have a poster of a shirtless Peter Schiff hanging over your bed...you might be a gold bug.
* If you spent the summer up at the cabin storing your own urine for it's nutrients...you might be a gold bug.
* If every single stock in your brokerage account contains the word "mining" in it's name...you might be a gold bug.
* If you get your financial advice from the Glenn Beck show...you might be a gold bug.
* If you start off many sentences with the phrase "Once gold breaks 1000," ...you might be a gold bug.
* If your IRA jingles when it hits the floor...you might be a gold bug.
* If the name of your investment club is AU Guys...you might be a gold bug.
* If the panic room you've just installed has it's own panic room...you might be a gold bug.
* If the birthday cards you send to friends and relatives include warnings about the danger of fiat currencies...you might be a gold bug.
Buffett who said he had only two rules: 1) Never lose money and 2) see rule number 1!
Seek Out Less Traveled Roads : Marketing :: American Express OPEN Forum
Seek Out Less Traveled Roads : Marketing :: American Express OPEN ForumMy favorite place to fish is in the past. I’m a student of Napolean Hill, of David Ogilvy, of Albert Lasker. I just downloaded a book about Vanderbilt and several of the other tycoons of their time, and found it stuffed full of ideas that I can move into a new venue and suddenly have them seem fresh and useful.
Friday, December 17, 2010
theBRIGADE: High Quality Photos of US Marines for Friday Firepower theBRIGADE
theBRIGADE: High Quality Photos of US Marines for Friday Firepower theBRIGADE
God Bless them one and all! 40 great Pics
God Bless them one and all! 40 great Pics
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Lostaglia House: Francesco's Money Speech--Atlas Shrugged
Lostaglia House: Francesco's Money Speech--Atlas Shrugged: "excerpt from Atlas Shrugged,"
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Home on the Range
Home on the Range: "You are as young as your faith,
as old as your doubt;
as young as your self-confidence,
as old as your fear;
as young as your hope,
as old as your despair."
Quotes quotation
as old as your doubt;
as young as your self-confidence,
as old as your fear;
as young as your hope,
as old as your despair."
Quotes quotation
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Grouchy Old Cripple: Adios America
Grouchy Old Cripple: Adios America
america the only nation that offers birthright citizenship to babies of aliens
america the only nation that offers birthright citizenship to babies of aliens
Thursday, November 25, 2010
The Big Picture
The Big Picture: "We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. ~ Winston Churchill"
Friday, November 19, 2010
Home on the Range: Smith and Wesson M & P
Home on the Range: Smith and Wesson M & P Pistol for concealed carry
Monday, November 15, 2010
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Frugal Dad | A frugal perspective on money, career and family
Frugal Dad | A frugal perspective on money, career and family
On "Fight for you"
Politicians like to tell us that they will “fight for us,” but how many of them really mean it in the same way members of our Armed Services fight for their country?
Standing in the halls of Congress delivering a tough speech is not the same as standing on top of an armored personnel carrier fending off enemies trying to kill you and everyone else inside. That’s a real fight. That’s life and death.
Shame on those who take our liberty for granted. Shame on those who pretend to uphold the values of our forefathers, and then undermine them at every vote. I will never believe my grandfather, and the millions like him, fought and died for nothing. I have always been proud to be an American, and always will be.
“I am an American” need not be stated apologetically, rather it should be exclaimed proudly. I hope the younger generations remember the lessons of that great generation, and carry them forward for us.
On "Fight for you"
Politicians like to tell us that they will “fight for us,” but how many of them really mean it in the same way members of our Armed Services fight for their country?
Standing in the halls of Congress delivering a tough speech is not the same as standing on top of an armored personnel carrier fending off enemies trying to kill you and everyone else inside. That’s a real fight. That’s life and death.
Shame on those who take our liberty for granted. Shame on those who pretend to uphold the values of our forefathers, and then undermine them at every vote. I will never believe my grandfather, and the millions like him, fought and died for nothing. I have always been proud to be an American, and always will be.
“I am an American” need not be stated apologetically, rather it should be exclaimed proudly. I hope the younger generations remember the lessons of that great generation, and carry them forward for us.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Monday, October 04, 2010
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Saturday, October 02, 2010
THE SHORT THAT GOT AWAY…. | Phil’s Stock World
THE SHORT THAT GOT AWAY…. | Phil’s Stock World
I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which the unemployment rate drops below 8% by 2012 (others are far more pessimistic). According to recent data from the CBO and BLS the United States will have to create 225,000 jobs per month just to get the unemployment rate down to 8% by summer of 2012. That’s a fairly optimistic figure considering the current predicament. When President Obama entered office the unemployment rate was 7.7%.
I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which the unemployment rate drops below 8% by 2012 (others are far more pessimistic). According to recent data from the CBO and BLS the United States will have to create 225,000 jobs per month just to get the unemployment rate down to 8% by summer of 2012. That’s a fairly optimistic figure considering the current predicament. When President Obama entered office the unemployment rate was 7.7%.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Monday, September 06, 2010
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
My Yahoo!
My Yahoo!
On Children
Kahlil Gibran
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The Archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.
On Children
Kahlil Gibran
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The Archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The Power of Biological Light in Healing
The Power of Biological Light in Healing: "Dr. Popp proved that light in your body is stored by, and emitted from, your DNA. The DNA inside each cell vibrates at a frequency of several billion hertz (which is unfortunately the same range at which modern cell phone communication systems also work)."
WARNING: Fructose Feeds Cancer Cells
WARNING: Fructose Feeds Cancer Cells: "It's already been conclusively shown that fructose, most commonly consumed in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), is FAR more hazardous to your health than regular sugar"
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Yes Folks, Hindenburg Omen Tripped Again - MarketBeat - WSJ
Yes Folks, Hindenburg Omen Tripped Again - MarketBeat - WSJ: "Hindenburg Omen"
This text comes from: The Complete Guide to Market Breadth Indicators, Gregory Morris, and Miekka gave this definition (why to believe other than the one of the inventor?):
”The Hindenburg Omen is a sell signal that occurs when NYSE new highs and new lows each exceed 2,8 percent of advances plus declines on the same day. In addition, the NYSE index must be above the value it had 50 tradings days (10 weeks) ago. Once the signal occurred, it is valid for 30 trading days. Any additional signals given during the 30-day period should be ignored. During the 30 days, the signal is activated whenever the McClellan Oscillator (MCO) is negative, but deactivated whenever the MCO is positive. The signal starting point was originally calculated to be when NH and NL equaled or exceeded 2,4 percent of total issues traded, but was later simplified to 2,8 percent of advances plus declines.”’
This text comes from: The Complete Guide to Market Breadth Indicators, Gregory Morris, and Miekka gave this definition (why to believe other than the one of the inventor?):
”The Hindenburg Omen is a sell signal that occurs when NYSE new highs and new lows each exceed 2,8 percent of advances plus declines on the same day. In addition, the NYSE index must be above the value it had 50 tradings days (10 weeks) ago. Once the signal occurred, it is valid for 30 trading days. Any additional signals given during the 30-day period should be ignored. During the 30 days, the signal is activated whenever the McClellan Oscillator (MCO) is negative, but deactivated whenever the MCO is positive. The signal starting point was originally calculated to be when NH and NL equaled or exceeded 2,4 percent of total issues traded, but was later simplified to 2,8 percent of advances plus declines.”’
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical presents Boned Jello
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical presents Boned Jello: "There was only one teensy problem. The United States of America doesn’t have 86,000 black farmers. According to accurate and totally verified census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697."
“In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997.” The case was entitled “Pigford v. Glickman” and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims. (About $20 million?)
But then on February 23 of this year, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment. In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to “Pigford”. The amount was a staggering $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs – 400 black farmers – had now swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America.
There was only one teensy problem. The United States of America doesn’t have 86,000 black farmers. According to accurate and totally verified census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Oops.
Well, gosh – how on earth did 39,697 explode into 86,000 claims? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion? Well, folks, you’ll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the “Rural Development Leadership Network” but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action – Shirley Sherrod. Oops again.
Yes, folks. It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the United States – a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting. [FreeRepublic
“In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997.” The case was entitled “Pigford v. Glickman” and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims. (About $20 million?)
But then on February 23 of this year, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment. In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to “Pigford”. The amount was a staggering $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs – 400 black farmers – had now swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America.
There was only one teensy problem. The United States of America doesn’t have 86,000 black farmers. According to accurate and totally verified census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Oops.
Well, gosh – how on earth did 39,697 explode into 86,000 claims? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion? Well, folks, you’ll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the “Rural Development Leadership Network” but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action – Shirley Sherrod. Oops again.
Yes, folks. It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the United States – a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting. [FreeRepublic
The Disadvantages of an Elite Education: an article by William Deresiewicz about how universities should exist to make minds, not careers | The American Scholar
The Disadvantages of an Elite Education: an article by William Deresiewicz about how universities should exist to make minds, not careers | The American Scholar
It didn’t dawn on me that there might be a few holes in my education until I was about 35. I’d just bought a house, the pipes needed fixing, and the plumber was standing in my kitchen. There he was, a short, beefy guy with a goatee and a Red Sox cap and a thick Boston accent, and I suddenly learned that I didn’t have the slightest idea what to say to someone like him. So alien was his experience to me, so unguessable his values, so mysterious his very language, that I couldn’t succeed in engaging him in a few minutes of small talk before he got down to work. Fourteen years of higher education and a handful of Ivy League degrees, and there I was, stiff and stupid, struck dumb by my own dumbness. “Ivy retardation,” a friend of mine calls this. I could carry on conversations with people from other countries, in other languages, but I couldn’t talk to the man who was standing in my own house.
It’s not surprising that it took me so long to discover the extent of my miseducation, because the last thing an elite education will teach you is its own inadequacy. As two dozen years at Yale and Columbia have shown me, elite colleges relentlessly encourage their students to flatter themselves for being there, and for what being there can do for them. The advantages of an elite education are indeed undeniable. You learn to think, at least in certain ways, and you make the contacts needed to launch yourself into a life rich in all of society’s most cherished rewards. To consider that while some opportunities are being created, others are being cancelled and that while some abilities are being developed, others are being crippled is, within this context, not only outrageous, but inconceivable.
I’m not talking about curricula or the culture wars, the closing or opening of the American mind, political correctness, canon formation, or what have you. I’m talking about the whole system in which these skirmishes play out. Not just the Ivy League and its peer institutions, but also the mechanisms that get you there in the first place: the private and affluent public “feeder” schools, the ever-growing parastructure of tutors and test-prep courses and enrichment programs, the whole admissions frenzy and everything that leads up to and away from it. The message, as always, is the medium. Before, after, and around the elite college classroom, a constellation of values is ceaselessly inculcated. As globalization sharpens economic insecurity, we are increasingly committing ourselves—as students, as parents, as a society—to a vast apparatus of educational advantage. With so many resources devoted to the business of elite academics and so many people scrambling for the limited space at the top of the ladder, it is worth asking what exactly it is you get in the end—what it is we all get, because the elite students of today, as their institutions never tire of reminding them, are the leaders of tomorrow.
The first disadvantage of an elite education, as I learned in my kitchen that day, is that it makes you incapable of talking to people who aren’t like you. Elite schools pride themselves on their diversity, but that diversity is almost entirely a matter of ethnicity and race. With respect to class, these schools are largely—indeed increasingly—homogeneous. Visit any elite campus in our great nation and you can thrill to the heartwarming spectacle of the children of white businesspeople and professionals studying and playing alongside the children of black, Asian, and Latino businesspeople and professionals. At the same time, because these schools tend to cultivate liberal attitudes, they leave their students in the paradoxical position of wanting to advocate on behalf of the working class while being unable to hold a simple conversation with anyone in it. Witness the last two Democratic presidential nominees, Al Gore and John Kerry: one each from Harvard and Yale, both earnest, decent, intelligent men, both utterly incapable of communicating with the larger electorate.
But it isn’t just a matter of class. My education taught me to believe that people who didn’t go to an Ivy League or equivalent school weren’t worth talking to, regardless of their class. I was given the unmistakable message that such people were beneath me. We were “the best and the brightest,” as these places love to say, and everyone else was, well, something else: less good, less bright. I learned to give that little nod of understanding, that slightly sympathetic “Oh,” when people told me they went to a less prestigious college. (If I’d gone to Harvard, I would have learned to say “in Boston” when I was asked where I went to school—the Cambridge version of noblesse oblige.) I never learned that there are smart people who don’t go to elite colleges, often precisely for reasons of class. I never learned that there are smart people who don’t go to college at all.
I also never learned that there are smart people who aren’t “smart.” The existence of multiple forms of intelligence has become a commonplace, but however much elite universities like to sprinkle their incoming classes with a few actors or violinists, they select for and develop one form of intelligence: the analytic. While this is broadly true of all universities, elite schools, precisely because their students (and faculty, and administrators) possess this one form of intelligence to such a high degree, are more apt to ignore the value of others. One naturally prizes what one most possesses and what most makes for one’s advantages. But social intelligence and emotional intelligence and creative ability, to name just three other forms, are not distributed preferentially among the educational elite. The “best” are the brightest only in one narrow sense. One needs to wander away from the educational elite to begin to discover this.
What about people who aren’t bright in any sense? I have a friend who went to an Ivy League college after graduating from a typically mediocre public high school. One of the values of going to such a school, she once said, is that it teaches you to relate to stupid people. Some people are smart in the elite-college way, some are smart in other ways, and some aren’t smart at all. It should be embarrassing not to know how to talk to any of them, if only because talking to people is the only real way of knowing them. Elite institutions are supposed to provide a humanistic education, but the first principle of humanism is Terence’s: “nothing human is alien to me.” The first disadvantage of an elite education is how very much of the human it alienates you from.
The second disadvantage, implicit in what I’ve been saying, is that an elite education inculcates a false sense of self-worth. Getting to an elite college, being at an elite college, and going on from an elite college—all involve numerical rankings: SAT, GPA, GRE. You learn to think of yourself in terms of those numbers. They come to signify not only your fate, but your identity; not only your identity, but your value. It’s been said that what those tests really measure is your ability to take tests, but even if they measure something real, it is only a small slice of the real. The problem begins when students are encouraged to forget this truth, when academic excellence becomes excellence in some absolute sense, when “better at X” becomes simply “better.”
There is nothing wrong with taking pride in one’s intellect or knowledge. There is something wrong with the smugness and self-congratulation that elite schools connive at from the moment the fat envelopes come in the mail. From orientation to graduation, the message is implicit in every tone of voice and tilt of the head, every old-school tradition, every article in the student paper, every speech from the dean. The message is: You have arrived. Welcome to the club. And the corollary is equally clear: You deserve everything your presence here is going to enable you to get. When people say that students at elite schools have a strong sense of entitlement, they mean that those students think they deserve more than other people because their SAT scores are higher.
At Yale, and no doubt at other places, the message is reinforced in embarrassingly literal terms. The physical form of the university—its quads and residential colleges, with their Gothic stone façades and wrought-iron portals—is constituted by the locked gate set into the encircling wall. Everyone carries around an ID card that determines which gates they can enter. The gate, in other words, is a kind of governing metaphor—because the social form of the university, as is true of every elite school, is constituted the same way. Elite colleges are walled domains guarded by locked gates, with admission granted only to the elect. The aptitude with which students absorb this lesson is demonstrated by the avidity with which they erect still more gates within those gates, special realms of ever-greater exclusivity—at Yale, the famous secret societies, or as they should probably be called, the open-secret societies, since true secrecy would defeat their purpose. There’s no point in excluding people unless they know they’ve been excluded.
One of the great errors of an elite education, then, is that it teaches you to think that measures of intelligence and academic achievement are measures of value in some moral or metaphysical sense. But they’re not. Graduates of elite schools are not more valuable than stupid people, or talentless people, or even lazy people. Their pain does not hurt more. Their souls do not weigh more. If I were religious, I would say, God does not love them more. The political implications should be clear. As John Ruskin told an older elite, grabbing what you can get isn’t any less wicked when you grab it with the power of your brains than with the power of your fists. “Work must always be,” Ruskin says, “and captains of work must always be….[But] there is a wide difference between being captains…of work, and taking the profits of it.”
The political implications don’t stop there. An elite education not only ushers you into the upper classes; it trains you for the life you will lead once you get there. I didn’t understand this until I began comparing my experience, and even more, my students’ experience, with the experience of a friend of mine who went to Cleveland State. There are due dates and attendance requirements at places like Yale, but no one takes them very seriously. Extensions are available for the asking; threats to deduct credit for missed classes are rarely, if ever, carried out. In other words, students at places like Yale get an endless string of second chances. Not so at places like Cleveland State. My friend once got a D in a class in which she’d been running an A because she was coming off a waitressing shift and had to hand in her term paper an hour late.
That may be an extreme example, but it is unthinkable at an elite school. Just as unthinkably, she had no one to appeal to. Students at places like Cleveland State, unlike those at places like Yale, don’t have a platoon of advisers and tutors and deans to write out excuses for late work, give them extra help when they need it, pick them up when they fall down. They get their education wholesale, from an indifferent bureaucracy; it’s not handed to them in individually wrapped packages by smiling clerks. There are few, if any, opportunities for the kind of contacts I saw my students get routinely—classes with visiting power brokers, dinners with foreign dignitaries. There are also few, if any, of the kind of special funds that, at places like Yale, are available in profusion: travel stipends, research fellowships, performance grants. Each year, my department at Yale awards dozens of cash prizes for everything from freshman essays to senior projects. This year, those awards came to more than $90,000—in just one department.
Students at places like Cleveland State also don’t get A-’s just for doing the work. There’s been a lot of handwringing lately over grade inflation, and it is a scandal, but the most scandalous thing about it is how uneven it’s been. Forty years ago, the average GPA at both public and private universities was about 2.6, still close to the traditional B-/C+ curve. Since then, it’s gone up everywhere, but not by anything like the same amount. The average gpa at public universities is now about 3.0, a B; at private universities it’s about 3.3, just short of a B+. And at most Ivy League schools, it’s closer to 3.4. But there are always students who don’t do the work, or who are taking a class far outside their field (for fun or to fulfill a requirement), or who aren’t up to standard to begin with (athletes, legacies). At a school like Yale, students who come to class and work hard expect nothing less than an A-. And most of the time, they get it.
In short, the way students are treated in college trains them for the social position they will occupy once they get out. At schools like Cleveland State, they’re being trained for positions somewhere in the middle of the class system, in the depths of one bureaucracy or another. They’re being conditioned for lives with few second chances, no extensions, little support, narrow opportunity—lives of subordination, supervision, and control, lives of deadlines, not guidelines. At places like Yale, of course, it’s the reverse. The elite like to think of themselves as belonging to a meritocracy, but that’s true only up to a point. Getting through the gate is very difficult, but once you’re in, there’s almost nothing you can do to get kicked out. Not the most abject academic failure, not the most heinous act of plagiarism, not even threatening a fellow student with bodily harm—I’ve heard of all three—will get you expelled. The feeling is that, by gosh, it just wouldn’t be fair—in other words, the self-protectiveness of the old-boy network, even if it now includes girls. Elite schools nurture excellence, but they also nurture what a former Yale graduate student I know calls “entitled mediocrity.” A is the mark of excellence; A- is the mark of entitled mediocrity. It’s another one of those metaphors, not so much a grade as a promise. It means, don’t worry, we’ll take care of you. You may not be all that good, but you’re good enough.
Here, too, college reflects the way things work in the adult world (unless it’s the other way around). For the elite, there’s always another extension—a bailout, a pardon, a stint in rehab—always plenty of contacts and special stipends—the country club, the conference, the year-end bonus, the dividend. If Al Gore and John Kerry represent one of the characteristic products of an elite education, George W. Bush represents another. It’s no coincidence that our current president, the apotheosis of entitled mediocrity, went to Yale. Entitled mediocrity is indeed the operating principle of his administration, but as Enron and WorldCom and the other scandals of the dot-com meltdown demonstrated, it’s also the operating principle of corporate America. The fat salaries paid to underperforming CEOs are an adult version of the A-. Anyone who remembers the injured sanctimony with which Kenneth Lay greeted the notion that he should be held accountable for his actions will understand the mentality in question—the belief that once you’re in the club, you’ve got a God-given right to stay in the club. But you don’t need to remember Ken Lay, because the whole dynamic played out again last year in the case of Scooter Libby, another Yale man.
If one of the disadvantages of an elite education is the temptation it offers to mediocrity, another is the temptation it offers to security. When parents explain why they work so hard to give their children the best possible education, they invariably say it is because of the opportunities it opens up. But what of the opportunities it shuts down? An elite education gives you the chance to be rich—which is, after all, what we’re talking about—but it takes away the chance not to be. Yet the opportunity not to be rich is one of the greatest opportunities with which young Americans have been blessed. We live in a society that is itself so wealthy that it can afford to provide a decent living to whole classes of people who in other countries exist (or in earlier times existed) on the brink of poverty or, at least, of indignity. You can live comfortably in the United States as a schoolteacher, or a community organizer, or a civil rights lawyer, or an artist—that is, by any reasonable definition of comfort. You have to live in an ordinary house instead of an apartment in Manhattan or a mansion in L.A.; you have to drive a Honda instead of a BMW or a Hummer; you have to vacation in Florida instead of Barbados or Paris, but what are such losses when set against the opportunity to do work you believe in, work you’re suited for, work you love, every day of your life?
Yet it is precisely that opportunity that an elite education takes away. How can I be a schoolteacher—wouldn’t that be a waste of my expensive education? Wouldn’t I be squandering the opportunities my parents worked so hard to provide? What will my friends think? How will I face my classmates at our 20th reunion, when they’re all rich lawyers or important people in New York? And the question that lies behind all these: Isn’t it beneath me? So a whole universe of possibility closes, and you miss your true calling.
This is not to say that students from elite colleges never pursue a riskier or less lucrative course after graduation, but even when they do, they tend to give up more quickly than others. (Let’s not even talk about the possibility of kids from privileged backgrounds not going to college at all, or delaying matriculation for several years, because however appropriate such choices might sometimes be, our rigid educational mentality places them outside the universe of possibility—the reason so many kids go sleepwalking off to college with no idea what they’re doing there.) This doesn’t seem to make sense, especially since students from elite schools tend to graduate with less debt and are more likely to be able to float by on family money for a while. I wasn’t aware of the phenomenon myself until I heard about it from a couple of graduate students in my department, one from Yale, one from Harvard. They were talking about trying to write poetry, how friends of theirs from college called it quits within a year or two while people they know from less prestigious schools are still at it. Why should this be? Because students from elite schools expect success, and expect it now. They have, by definition, never experienced anything else, and their sense of self has been built around their ability to succeed. The idea of not being successful terrifies them, disorients them, defeats them. They’ve been driven their whole lives by a fear of failure—often, in the first instance, by their parents’ fear of failure. The first time I blew a test, I walked out of the room feeling like I no longer knew who I was. The second time, it was easier; I had started to learn that failure isn’t the end of the world.
But if you’re afraid to fail, you’re afraid to take risks, which begins to explain the final and most damning disadvantage of an elite education: that it is profoundly anti-intellectual. This will seem counterintuitive. Aren’t kids at elite schools the smartest ones around, at least in the narrow academic sense? Don’t they work harder than anyone else—indeed, harder than any previous generation? They are. They do. But being an intellectual is not the same as being smart. Being an intellectual means more than doing your homework.
If so few kids come to college understanding this, it is no wonder. They are products of a system that rarely asked them to think about something bigger than the next assignment. The system forgot to teach them, along the way to the prestige admissions and the lucrative jobs, that the most important achievements can’t be measured by a letter or a number or a name. It forgot that the true purpose of education is to make minds, not careers.
Being an intellectual means, first of all, being passionate about ideas—and not just for the duration of a semester, for the sake of pleasing the teacher, or for getting a good grade. A friend who teaches at the University of Connecticut once complained to me that his students don’t think for themselves. Well, I said, Yale students think for themselves, but only because they know we want them to. I’ve had many wonderful students at Yale and Columbia, bright, thoughtful, creative kids whom it’s been a pleasure to talk with and learn from. But most of them have seemed content to color within the lines that their education had marked out for them. Only a small minority have seen their education as part of a larger intellectual journey, have approached the work of the mind with a pilgrim soul. These few have tended to feel like freaks, not least because they get so little support from the university itself. Places like Yale, as one of them put it to me, are not conducive to searchers.
Places like Yale are simply not set up to help students ask the big questions. I don’t think there ever was a golden age of intellectualism in the American university, but in the 19th century students might at least have had a chance to hear such questions raised in chapel or in the literary societies and debating clubs that flourished on campus. Throughout much of the 20th century, with the growth of the humanistic ideal in American colleges, students might have encountered the big questions in the classrooms of professors possessed of a strong sense of pedagogic mission. Teachers like that still exist in this country, but the increasingly dire exigencies of academic professionalization have made them all but extinct at elite universities. Professors at top research institutions are valued exclusively for the quality of their scholarly work; time spent on teaching is time lost. If students want a conversion experience, they’re better off at a liberal arts college.
When elite universities boast that they teach their students how to think, they mean that they teach them the analytic and rhetorical skills necessary for success in law or medicine or science or business. But a humanistic education is supposed to mean something more than that, as universities still dimly feel. So when students get to college, they hear a couple of speeches telling them to ask the big questions, and when they graduate, they hear a couple more speeches telling them to ask the big questions. And in between, they spend four years taking courses that train them to ask the little questions—specialized courses, taught by specialized professors, aimed at specialized students. Although the notion of breadth is implicit in the very idea of a liberal arts education, the admissions process increasingly selects for kids who have already begun to think of themselves in specialized terms—the junior journalist, the budding astronomer, the language prodigy. We are slouching, even at elite schools, toward a glorified form of vocational training.
Indeed, that seems to be exactly what those schools want. There’s a reason elite schools speak of training leaders, not thinkers—holders of power, not its critics. An independent mind is independent of all allegiances, and elite schools, which get a large percentage of their budget from alumni giving, are strongly invested in fostering institutional loyalty. As another friend, a third-generation Yalie, says, the purpose of Yale College is to manufacture Yale alumni. Of course, for the system to work, those alumni need money. At Yale, the long-term drift of students away from majors in the humanities and basic sciences toward more practical ones like computer science and economics has been abetted by administrative indifference. The college career office has little to say to students not interested in law, medicine, or business, and elite universities are not going to do anything to discourage the large percentage of their graduates who take their degrees to Wall Street. In fact, they’re showing them the way. The liberal arts university is becoming the corporate university, its center of gravity shifting to technical fields where scholarly expertise can be parlayed into lucrative business opportunities.
It’s no wonder that the few students who are passionate about ideas find themselves feeling isolated and confused. I was talking with one of them last year about his interest in the German Romantic idea of bildung, the upbuilding of the soul. But, he said—he was a senior at the time—it’s hard to build your soul when everyone around you is trying to sell theirs.
Yet there is a dimension of the intellectual life that lies above the passion for ideas, though so thoroughly has our culture been sanitized of it that it is hardly surprising if it was beyond the reach of even my most alert students. Since the idea of the intellectual emerged in the 18th century, it has had, at its core, a commitment to social transformation. Being an intellectual means thinking your way toward a vision of the good society and then trying to realize that vision by speaking truth to power. It means going into spiritual exile. It means foreswearing your allegiance, in lonely freedom, to God, to country, and to Yale. It takes more than just intellect; it takes imagination and courage. “I am not afraid to make a mistake,” Stephen Dedalus says, “even a great mistake, a lifelong mistake, and perhaps as long as eternity, too.”
Being an intellectual begins with thinking your way outside of your assumptions and the system that enforces them. But students who get into elite schools are precisely the ones who have best learned to work within the system, so it’s almost impossible for them to see outside it, to see that it’s even there. Long before they got to college, they turned themselves into world-class hoop-jumpers and teacher-pleasers, getting A’s in every class no matter how boring they found the teacher or how pointless the subject, racking up eight or 10 extracurricular activities no matter what else they wanted to do with their time. Paradoxically, the situation may be better at second-tier schools and, in particular, again, at liberal arts colleges than at the most prestigious universities. Some students end up at second-tier schools because they’re exactly like students at Harvard or Yale, only less gifted or driven. But others end up there because they have a more independent spirit. They didn’t get straight A’s because they couldn’t be bothered to give everything in every class. They concentrated on the ones that meant the most to them or on a single strong extracurricular passion or on projects that had nothing to do with school or even with looking good on a college application. Maybe they just sat in their room, reading a lot and writing in their journal. These are the kinds of kids who are likely, once they get to college, to be more interested in the human spirit than in school spirit, and to think about leaving college bearing questions, not resumés.
I’ve been struck, during my time at Yale, by how similar everyone looks. You hardly see any hippies or punks or art-school types, and at a college that was known in the ’80s as the Gay Ivy, few out lesbians and no gender queers. The geeks don’t look all that geeky; the fashionable kids go in for understated elegance. Thirty-two flavors, all of them vanilla. The most elite schools have become places of a narrow and suffocating normalcy. Everyone feels pressure to maintain the kind of appearance—and affect—that go with achievement. (Dress for success, medicate for success.) I know from long experience as an adviser that not every Yale student is appropriate and well-adjusted, which is exactly why it worries me that so many of them act that way. The tyranny of the normal must be very heavy in their lives. One consequence is that those who can’t get with the program (and they tend to be students from poorer backgrounds) often polarize in the opposite direction, flying off into extremes of disaffection and self-destruction. But another consequence has to do with the large majority who can get with the program.
I taught a class several years ago on the literature of friendship. One day we were discussing Virginia Woolf’s novel The Waves, which follows a group of friends from childhood to middle age. In high school, one of them falls in love with another boy. He thinks, “To whom can I expose the urgency of my own passion?…There is nobody—here among these grey arches, and moaning pigeons, and cheerful games and tradition and emulation, all so skilfully organised to prevent feeling alone.” A pretty good description of an elite college campus, including the part about never being allowed to feel alone. What did my students think of this, I wanted to know? What does it mean to go to school at a place where you’re never alone? Well, one of them said, I do feel uncomfortable sitting in my room by myself. Even when I have to write a paper, I do it at a friend’s. That same day, as it happened, another student gave a presentation on Emerson’s essay on friendship. Emerson says, he reported, that one of the purposes of friendship is to equip you for solitude. As I was asking my students what they thought that meant, one of them interrupted to say, wait a second, why do you need solitude in the first place? What can you do by yourself that you can’t do with a friend?
So there they were: one young person who had lost the capacity for solitude and another who couldn’t see the point of it. There’s been much talk of late about the loss of privacy, but equally calamitous is its corollary, the loss of solitude. It used to be that you couldn’t always get together with your friends even when you wanted to. Now that students are in constant electronic contact, they never have trouble finding each other. But it’s not as if their compulsive sociability is enabling them to develop deep friendships. “To whom can I expose the urgency of my own passion?”: my student was in her friend’s room writing a paper, not having a heart-to-heart. She probably didn’t have the time; indeed, other students told me they found their peers too busy for intimacy.
What happens when busyness and sociability leave no room for solitude? The ability to engage in introspection, I put it to my students that day, is the essential precondition for living an intellectual life, and the essential precondition for introspection is solitude. They took this in for a second, and then one of them said, with a dawning sense of self-awareness, “So are you saying that we’re all just, like, really excellent sheep?” Well, I don’t know. But I do know that the life of the mind is lived one mind at a time: one solitary, skeptical, resistant mind at a time. The best place to cultivate it is not within an educational system whose real purpose is to reproduce the class system.
The world that produced John Kerry and George Bush is indeed giving us our next generation of leaders. The kid who’s loading up on AP courses junior year or editing three campus publications while double-majoring, the kid whom everyone wants at their college or law school but no one wants in their classroom, the kid who doesn’t have a minute to breathe, let alone think, will soon be running a corporation or an institution or a government. She will have many achievements but little experience, great success but no vision. The disadvantage of an elite education is that it’s given us the elite we have, and the elite we’re going to have.
William Deresiewicz is an essayist and critic. His article "The Disadvantages of an Elite Education" appeared in the Summer 2008 issue of
THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR.
It didn’t dawn on me that there might be a few holes in my education until I was about 35. I’d just bought a house, the pipes needed fixing, and the plumber was standing in my kitchen. There he was, a short, beefy guy with a goatee and a Red Sox cap and a thick Boston accent, and I suddenly learned that I didn’t have the slightest idea what to say to someone like him. So alien was his experience to me, so unguessable his values, so mysterious his very language, that I couldn’t succeed in engaging him in a few minutes of small talk before he got down to work. Fourteen years of higher education and a handful of Ivy League degrees, and there I was, stiff and stupid, struck dumb by my own dumbness. “Ivy retardation,” a friend of mine calls this. I could carry on conversations with people from other countries, in other languages, but I couldn’t talk to the man who was standing in my own house.
It’s not surprising that it took me so long to discover the extent of my miseducation, because the last thing an elite education will teach you is its own inadequacy. As two dozen years at Yale and Columbia have shown me, elite colleges relentlessly encourage their students to flatter themselves for being there, and for what being there can do for them. The advantages of an elite education are indeed undeniable. You learn to think, at least in certain ways, and you make the contacts needed to launch yourself into a life rich in all of society’s most cherished rewards. To consider that while some opportunities are being created, others are being cancelled and that while some abilities are being developed, others are being crippled is, within this context, not only outrageous, but inconceivable.
I’m not talking about curricula or the culture wars, the closing or opening of the American mind, political correctness, canon formation, or what have you. I’m talking about the whole system in which these skirmishes play out. Not just the Ivy League and its peer institutions, but also the mechanisms that get you there in the first place: the private and affluent public “feeder” schools, the ever-growing parastructure of tutors and test-prep courses and enrichment programs, the whole admissions frenzy and everything that leads up to and away from it. The message, as always, is the medium. Before, after, and around the elite college classroom, a constellation of values is ceaselessly inculcated. As globalization sharpens economic insecurity, we are increasingly committing ourselves—as students, as parents, as a society—to a vast apparatus of educational advantage. With so many resources devoted to the business of elite academics and so many people scrambling for the limited space at the top of the ladder, it is worth asking what exactly it is you get in the end—what it is we all get, because the elite students of today, as their institutions never tire of reminding them, are the leaders of tomorrow.
The first disadvantage of an elite education, as I learned in my kitchen that day, is that it makes you incapable of talking to people who aren’t like you. Elite schools pride themselves on their diversity, but that diversity is almost entirely a matter of ethnicity and race. With respect to class, these schools are largely—indeed increasingly—homogeneous. Visit any elite campus in our great nation and you can thrill to the heartwarming spectacle of the children of white businesspeople and professionals studying and playing alongside the children of black, Asian, and Latino businesspeople and professionals. At the same time, because these schools tend to cultivate liberal attitudes, they leave their students in the paradoxical position of wanting to advocate on behalf of the working class while being unable to hold a simple conversation with anyone in it. Witness the last two Democratic presidential nominees, Al Gore and John Kerry: one each from Harvard and Yale, both earnest, decent, intelligent men, both utterly incapable of communicating with the larger electorate.
But it isn’t just a matter of class. My education taught me to believe that people who didn’t go to an Ivy League or equivalent school weren’t worth talking to, regardless of their class. I was given the unmistakable message that such people were beneath me. We were “the best and the brightest,” as these places love to say, and everyone else was, well, something else: less good, less bright. I learned to give that little nod of understanding, that slightly sympathetic “Oh,” when people told me they went to a less prestigious college. (If I’d gone to Harvard, I would have learned to say “in Boston” when I was asked where I went to school—the Cambridge version of noblesse oblige.) I never learned that there are smart people who don’t go to elite colleges, often precisely for reasons of class. I never learned that there are smart people who don’t go to college at all.
I also never learned that there are smart people who aren’t “smart.” The existence of multiple forms of intelligence has become a commonplace, but however much elite universities like to sprinkle their incoming classes with a few actors or violinists, they select for and develop one form of intelligence: the analytic. While this is broadly true of all universities, elite schools, precisely because their students (and faculty, and administrators) possess this one form of intelligence to such a high degree, are more apt to ignore the value of others. One naturally prizes what one most possesses and what most makes for one’s advantages. But social intelligence and emotional intelligence and creative ability, to name just three other forms, are not distributed preferentially among the educational elite. The “best” are the brightest only in one narrow sense. One needs to wander away from the educational elite to begin to discover this.
What about people who aren’t bright in any sense? I have a friend who went to an Ivy League college after graduating from a typically mediocre public high school. One of the values of going to such a school, she once said, is that it teaches you to relate to stupid people. Some people are smart in the elite-college way, some are smart in other ways, and some aren’t smart at all. It should be embarrassing not to know how to talk to any of them, if only because talking to people is the only real way of knowing them. Elite institutions are supposed to provide a humanistic education, but the first principle of humanism is Terence’s: “nothing human is alien to me.” The first disadvantage of an elite education is how very much of the human it alienates you from.
The second disadvantage, implicit in what I’ve been saying, is that an elite education inculcates a false sense of self-worth. Getting to an elite college, being at an elite college, and going on from an elite college—all involve numerical rankings: SAT, GPA, GRE. You learn to think of yourself in terms of those numbers. They come to signify not only your fate, but your identity; not only your identity, but your value. It’s been said that what those tests really measure is your ability to take tests, but even if they measure something real, it is only a small slice of the real. The problem begins when students are encouraged to forget this truth, when academic excellence becomes excellence in some absolute sense, when “better at X” becomes simply “better.”
There is nothing wrong with taking pride in one’s intellect or knowledge. There is something wrong with the smugness and self-congratulation that elite schools connive at from the moment the fat envelopes come in the mail. From orientation to graduation, the message is implicit in every tone of voice and tilt of the head, every old-school tradition, every article in the student paper, every speech from the dean. The message is: You have arrived. Welcome to the club. And the corollary is equally clear: You deserve everything your presence here is going to enable you to get. When people say that students at elite schools have a strong sense of entitlement, they mean that those students think they deserve more than other people because their SAT scores are higher.
At Yale, and no doubt at other places, the message is reinforced in embarrassingly literal terms. The physical form of the university—its quads and residential colleges, with their Gothic stone façades and wrought-iron portals—is constituted by the locked gate set into the encircling wall. Everyone carries around an ID card that determines which gates they can enter. The gate, in other words, is a kind of governing metaphor—because the social form of the university, as is true of every elite school, is constituted the same way. Elite colleges are walled domains guarded by locked gates, with admission granted only to the elect. The aptitude with which students absorb this lesson is demonstrated by the avidity with which they erect still more gates within those gates, special realms of ever-greater exclusivity—at Yale, the famous secret societies, or as they should probably be called, the open-secret societies, since true secrecy would defeat their purpose. There’s no point in excluding people unless they know they’ve been excluded.
One of the great errors of an elite education, then, is that it teaches you to think that measures of intelligence and academic achievement are measures of value in some moral or metaphysical sense. But they’re not. Graduates of elite schools are not more valuable than stupid people, or talentless people, or even lazy people. Their pain does not hurt more. Their souls do not weigh more. If I were religious, I would say, God does not love them more. The political implications should be clear. As John Ruskin told an older elite, grabbing what you can get isn’t any less wicked when you grab it with the power of your brains than with the power of your fists. “Work must always be,” Ruskin says, “and captains of work must always be….[But] there is a wide difference between being captains…of work, and taking the profits of it.”
The political implications don’t stop there. An elite education not only ushers you into the upper classes; it trains you for the life you will lead once you get there. I didn’t understand this until I began comparing my experience, and even more, my students’ experience, with the experience of a friend of mine who went to Cleveland State. There are due dates and attendance requirements at places like Yale, but no one takes them very seriously. Extensions are available for the asking; threats to deduct credit for missed classes are rarely, if ever, carried out. In other words, students at places like Yale get an endless string of second chances. Not so at places like Cleveland State. My friend once got a D in a class in which she’d been running an A because she was coming off a waitressing shift and had to hand in her term paper an hour late.
That may be an extreme example, but it is unthinkable at an elite school. Just as unthinkably, she had no one to appeal to. Students at places like Cleveland State, unlike those at places like Yale, don’t have a platoon of advisers and tutors and deans to write out excuses for late work, give them extra help when they need it, pick them up when they fall down. They get their education wholesale, from an indifferent bureaucracy; it’s not handed to them in individually wrapped packages by smiling clerks. There are few, if any, opportunities for the kind of contacts I saw my students get routinely—classes with visiting power brokers, dinners with foreign dignitaries. There are also few, if any, of the kind of special funds that, at places like Yale, are available in profusion: travel stipends, research fellowships, performance grants. Each year, my department at Yale awards dozens of cash prizes for everything from freshman essays to senior projects. This year, those awards came to more than $90,000—in just one department.
Students at places like Cleveland State also don’t get A-’s just for doing the work. There’s been a lot of handwringing lately over grade inflation, and it is a scandal, but the most scandalous thing about it is how uneven it’s been. Forty years ago, the average GPA at both public and private universities was about 2.6, still close to the traditional B-/C+ curve. Since then, it’s gone up everywhere, but not by anything like the same amount. The average gpa at public universities is now about 3.0, a B; at private universities it’s about 3.3, just short of a B+. And at most Ivy League schools, it’s closer to 3.4. But there are always students who don’t do the work, or who are taking a class far outside their field (for fun or to fulfill a requirement), or who aren’t up to standard to begin with (athletes, legacies). At a school like Yale, students who come to class and work hard expect nothing less than an A-. And most of the time, they get it.
In short, the way students are treated in college trains them for the social position they will occupy once they get out. At schools like Cleveland State, they’re being trained for positions somewhere in the middle of the class system, in the depths of one bureaucracy or another. They’re being conditioned for lives with few second chances, no extensions, little support, narrow opportunity—lives of subordination, supervision, and control, lives of deadlines, not guidelines. At places like Yale, of course, it’s the reverse. The elite like to think of themselves as belonging to a meritocracy, but that’s true only up to a point. Getting through the gate is very difficult, but once you’re in, there’s almost nothing you can do to get kicked out. Not the most abject academic failure, not the most heinous act of plagiarism, not even threatening a fellow student with bodily harm—I’ve heard of all three—will get you expelled. The feeling is that, by gosh, it just wouldn’t be fair—in other words, the self-protectiveness of the old-boy network, even if it now includes girls. Elite schools nurture excellence, but they also nurture what a former Yale graduate student I know calls “entitled mediocrity.” A is the mark of excellence; A- is the mark of entitled mediocrity. It’s another one of those metaphors, not so much a grade as a promise. It means, don’t worry, we’ll take care of you. You may not be all that good, but you’re good enough.
Here, too, college reflects the way things work in the adult world (unless it’s the other way around). For the elite, there’s always another extension—a bailout, a pardon, a stint in rehab—always plenty of contacts and special stipends—the country club, the conference, the year-end bonus, the dividend. If Al Gore and John Kerry represent one of the characteristic products of an elite education, George W. Bush represents another. It’s no coincidence that our current president, the apotheosis of entitled mediocrity, went to Yale. Entitled mediocrity is indeed the operating principle of his administration, but as Enron and WorldCom and the other scandals of the dot-com meltdown demonstrated, it’s also the operating principle of corporate America. The fat salaries paid to underperforming CEOs are an adult version of the A-. Anyone who remembers the injured sanctimony with which Kenneth Lay greeted the notion that he should be held accountable for his actions will understand the mentality in question—the belief that once you’re in the club, you’ve got a God-given right to stay in the club. But you don’t need to remember Ken Lay, because the whole dynamic played out again last year in the case of Scooter Libby, another Yale man.
If one of the disadvantages of an elite education is the temptation it offers to mediocrity, another is the temptation it offers to security. When parents explain why they work so hard to give their children the best possible education, they invariably say it is because of the opportunities it opens up. But what of the opportunities it shuts down? An elite education gives you the chance to be rich—which is, after all, what we’re talking about—but it takes away the chance not to be. Yet the opportunity not to be rich is one of the greatest opportunities with which young Americans have been blessed. We live in a society that is itself so wealthy that it can afford to provide a decent living to whole classes of people who in other countries exist (or in earlier times existed) on the brink of poverty or, at least, of indignity. You can live comfortably in the United States as a schoolteacher, or a community organizer, or a civil rights lawyer, or an artist—that is, by any reasonable definition of comfort. You have to live in an ordinary house instead of an apartment in Manhattan or a mansion in L.A.; you have to drive a Honda instead of a BMW or a Hummer; you have to vacation in Florida instead of Barbados or Paris, but what are such losses when set against the opportunity to do work you believe in, work you’re suited for, work you love, every day of your life?
Yet it is precisely that opportunity that an elite education takes away. How can I be a schoolteacher—wouldn’t that be a waste of my expensive education? Wouldn’t I be squandering the opportunities my parents worked so hard to provide? What will my friends think? How will I face my classmates at our 20th reunion, when they’re all rich lawyers or important people in New York? And the question that lies behind all these: Isn’t it beneath me? So a whole universe of possibility closes, and you miss your true calling.
This is not to say that students from elite colleges never pursue a riskier or less lucrative course after graduation, but even when they do, they tend to give up more quickly than others. (Let’s not even talk about the possibility of kids from privileged backgrounds not going to college at all, or delaying matriculation for several years, because however appropriate such choices might sometimes be, our rigid educational mentality places them outside the universe of possibility—the reason so many kids go sleepwalking off to college with no idea what they’re doing there.) This doesn’t seem to make sense, especially since students from elite schools tend to graduate with less debt and are more likely to be able to float by on family money for a while. I wasn’t aware of the phenomenon myself until I heard about it from a couple of graduate students in my department, one from Yale, one from Harvard. They were talking about trying to write poetry, how friends of theirs from college called it quits within a year or two while people they know from less prestigious schools are still at it. Why should this be? Because students from elite schools expect success, and expect it now. They have, by definition, never experienced anything else, and their sense of self has been built around their ability to succeed. The idea of not being successful terrifies them, disorients them, defeats them. They’ve been driven their whole lives by a fear of failure—often, in the first instance, by their parents’ fear of failure. The first time I blew a test, I walked out of the room feeling like I no longer knew who I was. The second time, it was easier; I had started to learn that failure isn’t the end of the world.
But if you’re afraid to fail, you’re afraid to take risks, which begins to explain the final and most damning disadvantage of an elite education: that it is profoundly anti-intellectual. This will seem counterintuitive. Aren’t kids at elite schools the smartest ones around, at least in the narrow academic sense? Don’t they work harder than anyone else—indeed, harder than any previous generation? They are. They do. But being an intellectual is not the same as being smart. Being an intellectual means more than doing your homework.
If so few kids come to college understanding this, it is no wonder. They are products of a system that rarely asked them to think about something bigger than the next assignment. The system forgot to teach them, along the way to the prestige admissions and the lucrative jobs, that the most important achievements can’t be measured by a letter or a number or a name. It forgot that the true purpose of education is to make minds, not careers.
Being an intellectual means, first of all, being passionate about ideas—and not just for the duration of a semester, for the sake of pleasing the teacher, or for getting a good grade. A friend who teaches at the University of Connecticut once complained to me that his students don’t think for themselves. Well, I said, Yale students think for themselves, but only because they know we want them to. I’ve had many wonderful students at Yale and Columbia, bright, thoughtful, creative kids whom it’s been a pleasure to talk with and learn from. But most of them have seemed content to color within the lines that their education had marked out for them. Only a small minority have seen their education as part of a larger intellectual journey, have approached the work of the mind with a pilgrim soul. These few have tended to feel like freaks, not least because they get so little support from the university itself. Places like Yale, as one of them put it to me, are not conducive to searchers.
Places like Yale are simply not set up to help students ask the big questions. I don’t think there ever was a golden age of intellectualism in the American university, but in the 19th century students might at least have had a chance to hear such questions raised in chapel or in the literary societies and debating clubs that flourished on campus. Throughout much of the 20th century, with the growth of the humanistic ideal in American colleges, students might have encountered the big questions in the classrooms of professors possessed of a strong sense of pedagogic mission. Teachers like that still exist in this country, but the increasingly dire exigencies of academic professionalization have made them all but extinct at elite universities. Professors at top research institutions are valued exclusively for the quality of their scholarly work; time spent on teaching is time lost. If students want a conversion experience, they’re better off at a liberal arts college.
When elite universities boast that they teach their students how to think, they mean that they teach them the analytic and rhetorical skills necessary for success in law or medicine or science or business. But a humanistic education is supposed to mean something more than that, as universities still dimly feel. So when students get to college, they hear a couple of speeches telling them to ask the big questions, and when they graduate, they hear a couple more speeches telling them to ask the big questions. And in between, they spend four years taking courses that train them to ask the little questions—specialized courses, taught by specialized professors, aimed at specialized students. Although the notion of breadth is implicit in the very idea of a liberal arts education, the admissions process increasingly selects for kids who have already begun to think of themselves in specialized terms—the junior journalist, the budding astronomer, the language prodigy. We are slouching, even at elite schools, toward a glorified form of vocational training.
Indeed, that seems to be exactly what those schools want. There’s a reason elite schools speak of training leaders, not thinkers—holders of power, not its critics. An independent mind is independent of all allegiances, and elite schools, which get a large percentage of their budget from alumni giving, are strongly invested in fostering institutional loyalty. As another friend, a third-generation Yalie, says, the purpose of Yale College is to manufacture Yale alumni. Of course, for the system to work, those alumni need money. At Yale, the long-term drift of students away from majors in the humanities and basic sciences toward more practical ones like computer science and economics has been abetted by administrative indifference. The college career office has little to say to students not interested in law, medicine, or business, and elite universities are not going to do anything to discourage the large percentage of their graduates who take their degrees to Wall Street. In fact, they’re showing them the way. The liberal arts university is becoming the corporate university, its center of gravity shifting to technical fields where scholarly expertise can be parlayed into lucrative business opportunities.
It’s no wonder that the few students who are passionate about ideas find themselves feeling isolated and confused. I was talking with one of them last year about his interest in the German Romantic idea of bildung, the upbuilding of the soul. But, he said—he was a senior at the time—it’s hard to build your soul when everyone around you is trying to sell theirs.
Yet there is a dimension of the intellectual life that lies above the passion for ideas, though so thoroughly has our culture been sanitized of it that it is hardly surprising if it was beyond the reach of even my most alert students. Since the idea of the intellectual emerged in the 18th century, it has had, at its core, a commitment to social transformation. Being an intellectual means thinking your way toward a vision of the good society and then trying to realize that vision by speaking truth to power. It means going into spiritual exile. It means foreswearing your allegiance, in lonely freedom, to God, to country, and to Yale. It takes more than just intellect; it takes imagination and courage. “I am not afraid to make a mistake,” Stephen Dedalus says, “even a great mistake, a lifelong mistake, and perhaps as long as eternity, too.”
Being an intellectual begins with thinking your way outside of your assumptions and the system that enforces them. But students who get into elite schools are precisely the ones who have best learned to work within the system, so it’s almost impossible for them to see outside it, to see that it’s even there. Long before they got to college, they turned themselves into world-class hoop-jumpers and teacher-pleasers, getting A’s in every class no matter how boring they found the teacher or how pointless the subject, racking up eight or 10 extracurricular activities no matter what else they wanted to do with their time. Paradoxically, the situation may be better at second-tier schools and, in particular, again, at liberal arts colleges than at the most prestigious universities. Some students end up at second-tier schools because they’re exactly like students at Harvard or Yale, only less gifted or driven. But others end up there because they have a more independent spirit. They didn’t get straight A’s because they couldn’t be bothered to give everything in every class. They concentrated on the ones that meant the most to them or on a single strong extracurricular passion or on projects that had nothing to do with school or even with looking good on a college application. Maybe they just sat in their room, reading a lot and writing in their journal. These are the kinds of kids who are likely, once they get to college, to be more interested in the human spirit than in school spirit, and to think about leaving college bearing questions, not resumés.
I’ve been struck, during my time at Yale, by how similar everyone looks. You hardly see any hippies or punks or art-school types, and at a college that was known in the ’80s as the Gay Ivy, few out lesbians and no gender queers. The geeks don’t look all that geeky; the fashionable kids go in for understated elegance. Thirty-two flavors, all of them vanilla. The most elite schools have become places of a narrow and suffocating normalcy. Everyone feels pressure to maintain the kind of appearance—and affect—that go with achievement. (Dress for success, medicate for success.) I know from long experience as an adviser that not every Yale student is appropriate and well-adjusted, which is exactly why it worries me that so many of them act that way. The tyranny of the normal must be very heavy in their lives. One consequence is that those who can’t get with the program (and they tend to be students from poorer backgrounds) often polarize in the opposite direction, flying off into extremes of disaffection and self-destruction. But another consequence has to do with the large majority who can get with the program.
I taught a class several years ago on the literature of friendship. One day we were discussing Virginia Woolf’s novel The Waves, which follows a group of friends from childhood to middle age. In high school, one of them falls in love with another boy. He thinks, “To whom can I expose the urgency of my own passion?…There is nobody—here among these grey arches, and moaning pigeons, and cheerful games and tradition and emulation, all so skilfully organised to prevent feeling alone.” A pretty good description of an elite college campus, including the part about never being allowed to feel alone. What did my students think of this, I wanted to know? What does it mean to go to school at a place where you’re never alone? Well, one of them said, I do feel uncomfortable sitting in my room by myself. Even when I have to write a paper, I do it at a friend’s. That same day, as it happened, another student gave a presentation on Emerson’s essay on friendship. Emerson says, he reported, that one of the purposes of friendship is to equip you for solitude. As I was asking my students what they thought that meant, one of them interrupted to say, wait a second, why do you need solitude in the first place? What can you do by yourself that you can’t do with a friend?
So there they were: one young person who had lost the capacity for solitude and another who couldn’t see the point of it. There’s been much talk of late about the loss of privacy, but equally calamitous is its corollary, the loss of solitude. It used to be that you couldn’t always get together with your friends even when you wanted to. Now that students are in constant electronic contact, they never have trouble finding each other. But it’s not as if their compulsive sociability is enabling them to develop deep friendships. “To whom can I expose the urgency of my own passion?”: my student was in her friend’s room writing a paper, not having a heart-to-heart. She probably didn’t have the time; indeed, other students told me they found their peers too busy for intimacy.
What happens when busyness and sociability leave no room for solitude? The ability to engage in introspection, I put it to my students that day, is the essential precondition for living an intellectual life, and the essential precondition for introspection is solitude. They took this in for a second, and then one of them said, with a dawning sense of self-awareness, “So are you saying that we’re all just, like, really excellent sheep?” Well, I don’t know. But I do know that the life of the mind is lived one mind at a time: one solitary, skeptical, resistant mind at a time. The best place to cultivate it is not within an educational system whose real purpose is to reproduce the class system.
The world that produced John Kerry and George Bush is indeed giving us our next generation of leaders. The kid who’s loading up on AP courses junior year or editing three campus publications while double-majoring, the kid whom everyone wants at their college or law school but no one wants in their classroom, the kid who doesn’t have a minute to breathe, let alone think, will soon be running a corporation or an institution or a government. She will have many achievements but little experience, great success but no vision. The disadvantage of an elite education is that it’s given us the elite we have, and the elite we’re going to have.
William Deresiewicz is an essayist and critic. His article "The Disadvantages of an Elite Education" appeared in the Summer 2008 issue of
THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Notable Quotes
Notable Quotes: "Daniel Webster,
speech in the Senate, 1833 “We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver; no sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors and a ruined people.”"
speech in the Senate, 1833 “We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver; no sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors and a ruined people.”"
Reagan insider: GOP destroyed economy Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch
Reagan insider: GOP destroyed economy Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch
Warning: this black swan won't be pretty, will shock, soon
His bottom line: "The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing ... it's a pity that the modern Republican party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach -- balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline -- is needed more than ever."
Wrong: There are far bigger things to "pity."
First, that most Americans, 300 million, are helpless, will do nothing, sit in the bleachers passively watching this deadly partisan game like it's just another TV reality show.
Second, that, unfortunately, politicians are so deep-in-the-pockets of the Wall Street conspiracy that controls Washington they are helpless and blind.
And third, there's a depressing sense that Stockman will be dismissed as a traitor, his message lost in the 24/7 news cycle ... until the final apocalyptic event, an unpredictable black swan triggers another, bigger global meltdown, followed by a long Great Depression II and a historic class war.
So be prepared, it will hit soon, when you least expect.
Warning: this black swan won't be pretty, will shock, soon
His bottom line: "The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing ... it's a pity that the modern Republican party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach -- balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline -- is needed more than ever."
Wrong: There are far bigger things to "pity."
First, that most Americans, 300 million, are helpless, will do nothing, sit in the bleachers passively watching this deadly partisan game like it's just another TV reality show.
Second, that, unfortunately, politicians are so deep-in-the-pockets of the Wall Street conspiracy that controls Washington they are helpless and blind.
And third, there's a depressing sense that Stockman will be dismissed as a traitor, his message lost in the 24/7 news cycle ... until the final apocalyptic event, an unpredictable black swan triggers another, bigger global meltdown, followed by a long Great Depression II and a historic class war.
So be prepared, it will hit soon, when you least expect.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Andrew Olmsted
Andrew Olmsted: "Final Post
'I am leaving this message for you because it appears I must leave sooner than I intended. I would have preferred to say this in person, but since I cannot, let me say it here.'
G'Kar, Babylon 5
'Only the dead have seen the end of war.'
Final Post
"I am leaving this message for you because it appears I must leave sooner than I intended. I would have preferred to say this in person, but since I cannot, let me say it here."
G'Kar, Babylon 5
"Only the dead have seen the end of war."
Plato*
This is an entry I would have preferred not to have published, but there are limits to what we can control in life, and apparently I have passed one of those limits. And so, like G'Kar, I must say here what I would much prefer to say in person. I want to thank hilzoy for putting it up for me. It's not easy asking anyone to do something for you in the event of your death, and it is a testament to her quality that she didn't hesitate to accept the charge. As with many bloggers, I have a disgustingly large ego, and so I just couldn't bear the thought of not being able to have the last word if the need arose. Perhaps I take that further than most, I don't know. I hope so. It's frightening to think there are many people as neurotic as I am in the world. In any case, since I won't get another chance to say what I think, I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity. Such as it is.
"When some people die, it's time to be sad. But when other people die, like really evil people, or the Irish, it's time to celebrate."
Jimmy Bender, "Greg the Bunny"
"And maybe now it's your turn
To die kicking some ass."
Freedom Isn't Free, Team America
What I don't want this to be is a chance for me, or anyone else, to be maudlin. I'm dead. That sucks, at least for me and my family and friends. But all the tears in the world aren't going to bring me back, so I would prefer that people remember the good things about me rather than mourning my loss. (If it turns out a specific number of tears will, in fact, bring me back to life, then by all means, break out the onions.) I had a pretty good life, as I noted above. Sure, all things being equal I would have preferred to have more time, but I have no business complaining with all the good fortune I've enjoyed in my life. So if you're up for that, put on a little 80s music (preferably vintage 1980-1984), grab a Coke and have a drink with me. If you have it, throw 'Freedom Isn't Free' from the Team America soundtrack in; if you can't laugh at that song, I think you need to lighten up a little. I'm dead, but if you're reading this, you're not, so take a moment to enjoy that happy fact.
"Our thoughts form the universe. They always matter."
Citizen G'Kar, Babylon 5
Believe it or not, one of the things I will miss most is not being able to blog any longer. The ability to put my thoughts on (virtual) paper and put them where people can read and respond to them has been marvelous, even if most people who have read my writings haven't agreed with them. If there is any hope for the long term success of democracy, it will be if people agree to listen to and try to understand their political opponents rather than simply seeking to crush them. While the blogosphere has its share of partisans, there are some awfully smart people making excellent arguments out there as well, and I know I have learned quite a bit since I began blogging. I flatter myself I may have made a good argument or two as well; if I didn't, please don't tell me. It has been a great five-plus years. I got to meet a lot of people who are way smarter than me, including such luminaries as Virginia Postrel and her husband Stephen (speaking strictly from a 'improving the species' perspective, it's tragic those two don't have kids, because they're both scary smart.), the estimable hilzoy and Sebastian of Obsidian Wings, Jeff Goldstein and Stephen Green, the men who consistently frustrated me with their mix of wit and wisdom I could never match, and I've no doubt left out a number of people to whom I apologize. Bottom line: if I got the chance to meet you through blogging, I enjoyed it. I'm only sorry I couldn't meet more of you. In particular I'd like to thank Jim Henley, who while we've never met has been a true comrade, whose words have taught me and whose support has been of great personal value to me. I would very much have enjoyed meeting Jim.
Blogging put me in touch with an inordinate number of smart people, an exhilarating if humbling experience. When I was young, I was smart, but the older I got, the more I realized just how dumb I was in comparison to truly smart people. But, to my credit, I think, I was at least smart enough to pay attention to the people with real brains and even occasionally learn something from them. It has been joy and a pleasure having the opportunity to do this.
"It's not fair."
"No. It's not. Death never is."
Captain John Sheridan and Dr. Stephen Franklin, Babylon 5
"They didn't even dig him a decent grave."
"Well, it's not how you're buried. It's how you're remembered."
Cimarron and Wil Andersen, The Cowboys
I suppose I should speak to the circumstances of my death. It would be nice to believe that I died leading men in battle, preferably saving their lives at the cost of my own. More likely I was caught by a marksman or an IED. But if there is an afterlife, I'm telling anyone who asks that I went down surrounded by hundreds of insurgents defending a village composed solely of innocent women and children. It'll be our little secret, ok?
I do ask (not that I'm in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes. I went to Iraq and did what I did for my reasons, not yours. My life isn't a chit to be used to bludgeon people to silence on either side. If you think the U.S. should stay in Iraq, don't drag me into it by claiming that somehow my death demands us staying in Iraq. If you think the U.S. ought to get out tomorrow, don't cite my name as an example of someone's life who was wasted by our mission in Iraq. I have my own opinions about what we should do about Iraq, but since I'm not around to expound on them I'd prefer others not try and use me as some kind of moral capital to support a position I probably didn't support. Further, this is tough enough on my family without their having to see my picture being used in some rally or my name being cited for some political purpose. You can fight political battles without hurting my family, and I'd prefer that you did so.
On a similar note, while you're free to think whatever you like about my life and death, if you think I wasted my life, I'll tell you you're wrong. We're all going to die of something. I died doing a job I loved. When your time comes, I hope you are as fortunate as I was.
"What an idiot! What a loser!"
Chaz Reingold, Wedding Crashers
"Oh and I don't want to die for you, but if dying's asked of me;
I'll bear that cross with honor, 'cause freedom don't come free."
American Soldier, Toby Keith
Those who know me through my writings on the Internet over the past five-plus years probably have wondered at times about my chosen profession. While I am not a Libertarian, I certainly hold strongly individualistic beliefs. Yet I have spent my life in a profession that is not generally known for rugged individualism. Worse, I volunteered to return to active duty knowing that the choice would almost certainly lead me to Iraq. The simple explanation might be that I was simply stupid, and certainly I make no bones about having done some dumb things in my life, but I don't think this can be chalked up to stupidity. Maybe I was inconsistent in my beliefs; there are few people who adhere religiously to the doctrines of their chosen philosophy, whatever that may be. But I don't think that was the case in this instance either.
As passionate as I am about personal freedom, I don't buy the claims of anarchists that humanity would be just fine without any government at all. There are too many people in the world who believe that they know best how people should live their lives, and many of them are more than willing to use force to impose those beliefs on others. A world without government simply wouldn't last very long; as soon as it was established, strongmen would immediately spring up to establish their fiefdoms. So there is a need for government to protect the people's rights. And one of the fundamental tools to do that is an army that can prevent outside agencies from imposing their rules on a society. A lot of people will protest that argument by noting that the people we are fighting in Iraq are unlikely to threaten the rights of the average American. That's certainly true; while our enemies would certainly like to wreak great levels of havoc on our society, the fact is they're not likely to succeed. But that doesn't mean there isn't still a need for an army (setting aside debates regarding whether ours is the right size at the moment). Americans are fortunate that we don't have to worry too much about people coming to try and overthrow us, but part of the reason we don't have to worry about that is because we have an army that is stopping anyone who would try.
Soldiers cannot have the option of opting out of missions because they don't agree with them: that violates the social contract. The duly-elected American government decided to go to war in Iraq. (Even if you maintain President Bush was not properly elected, Congress voted for war as well.) As a soldier, I have a duty to obey the orders of the President of the United States as long as they are Constitutional. I can no more opt out of missions I disagree with than I can ignore laws I think are improper. I do not consider it a violation of my individual rights to have gone to Iraq on orders because I raised my right hand and volunteered to join the army. Whether or not this mission was a good one, my participation in it was an affirmation of something I consider quite necessary to society. So if nothing else, I gave my life for a pretty important principle; I can (if you'll pardon the pun) live with that.
"It's all so brief, isn't it? A typical human lifespan is almost a hundred years. But it's barely a second compared to what's out there. It wouldn't be so bad if life didn't take so long to figure out. Seems you just start to get it right, and then...it's over."
Dr. Stephen Franklin, Babylon 5
I wish I could say I'd at least started to get it right. Although, in my defense, I think I batted a solid .250 or so. Not a superstar, but at least able to play in the big leagues. I'm afraid I can't really offer any deep secrets or wisdom. I lived my life better than some, worse than others, and I like to think that the world was a little better off for my having been here. Not very much, but then, few of us are destined to make more than a tiny dent in history's Green Monster. I would be lying if I didn't admit I would have liked to have done more, but it's a bit too late for that now, eh? The bottom line, for me, is that I think I can look back at my life and at least see a few areas where I may have made a tiny difference, and massive ego aside, that's probably not too bad.
"The flame also reminds us that life is precious. As each flame is unique; when it goes out, it's gone forever. There will never be another quite like it."
Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5
I write this in part, admittedly, because I would like to think that there's at least a little something out there to remember me by. Granted, this site will eventually vanish, being ephemeral in a very real sense of the word, but at least for a time it can serve as a tiny record of my contributions to the world. But on a larger scale, for those who knew me well enough to be saddened by my death, especially for those who haven't known anyone else lost to this war, perhaps my death can serve as a small reminder of the costs of war. Regardless of the merits of this war, or of any war, I think that many of us in America have forgotten that war means death and suffering in wholesale lots. A decision that for most of us in America was academic, whether or not to go to war in Iraq, had very real consequences for hundreds of thousands of people. Yet I was as guilty as anyone of minimizing those very real consequences in lieu of a cold discussion of theoretical merits of war and peace. Now I'm facing some very real consequences of that decision; who says life doesn't have a sense of humor?
But for those who knew me and feel this pain, I think it's a good thing to realize that this pain has been felt by thousands and thousands (probably millions, actually) of other people all over the world. That is part of the cost of war, any war, no matter how justified. If everyone who feels this pain keeps that in mind the next time we have to decide whether or not war is a good idea, perhaps it will help us to make a more informed decision. Because it is pretty clear that the average American would not have supported the Iraq War had they known the costs going in. I am far too cynical to believe that any future debate over war will be any less vitriolic or emotional, but perhaps a few more people will realize just what those costs can be the next time.
This may be a contradiction of my above call to keep politics out of my death, but I hope not. Sometimes going to war is the right idea. I think we've drawn that line too far in the direction of war rather than peace, but I'm a soldier and I know that sometimes you have to fight if you're to hold onto what you hold dear. But in making that decision, I believe we understate the costs of war; when we make the decision to fight, we make the decision to kill, and that means lives and families destroyed. Mine now falls into that category; the next time the question of war or peace comes up, if you knew me at least you can understand a bit more just what it is you're deciding to do, and whether or not those costs are worth it.
"This is true love. You think this happens every day?"
Westley, The Princess Bride
"Good night, my love, the brightest star in my sky."
John Sheridan, Babylon 5
This is the hardest part. While I certainly have no desire to die, at this point I no longer have any worries. That is not true of the woman who made my life something to enjoy rather than something merely to survive. She put up with all of my faults, and they are myriad, she endured separations again and again...I cannot imagine being more fortunate in love than I have been with Amanda. Now she has to go on without me, and while a cynic might observe she's better off, I know that this is a terrible burden I have placed on her, and I would give almost anything if she would not have to bear it. It seems that is not an option. I cannot imagine anything more painful than that, and if there is an afterlife, this is a pain I'll bear forever.
I wasn't the greatest husband. I could have done so much more, a realization that, as it so often does, comes too late to matter. But I cherished every day I was married to Amanda. When everything else in my life seemed dark, she was always there to light the darkness. It is difficult to imagine my life being worth living without her having been in it. I hope and pray that she goes on without me and enjoys her life as much as she deserves. I can think of no one more deserving of happiness than her.
"I will see you again, in the place where no shadows fall."
Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5
I don't know if there is an afterlife; I tend to doubt it, to be perfectly honest. But if there is any way possible, Amanda, then I will live up to Delenn's words, somehow, some way. I love you.
***
[A note from hilzoy, the friend he asked to put this post up: people are leaving their respects to Andy here, here, and here.]
Posted at 11:18 AM · Personal · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
Andrew Olmsted
Plato*"
'I am leaving this message for you because it appears I must leave sooner than I intended. I would have preferred to say this in person, but since I cannot, let me say it here.'
G'Kar, Babylon 5
'Only the dead have seen the end of war.'
Final Post
"I am leaving this message for you because it appears I must leave sooner than I intended. I would have preferred to say this in person, but since I cannot, let me say it here."
G'Kar, Babylon 5
"Only the dead have seen the end of war."
Plato*
This is an entry I would have preferred not to have published, but there are limits to what we can control in life, and apparently I have passed one of those limits. And so, like G'Kar, I must say here what I would much prefer to say in person. I want to thank hilzoy for putting it up for me. It's not easy asking anyone to do something for you in the event of your death, and it is a testament to her quality that she didn't hesitate to accept the charge. As with many bloggers, I have a disgustingly large ego, and so I just couldn't bear the thought of not being able to have the last word if the need arose. Perhaps I take that further than most, I don't know. I hope so. It's frightening to think there are many people as neurotic as I am in the world. In any case, since I won't get another chance to say what I think, I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity. Such as it is.
"When some people die, it's time to be sad. But when other people die, like really evil people, or the Irish, it's time to celebrate."
Jimmy Bender, "Greg the Bunny"
"And maybe now it's your turn
To die kicking some ass."
Freedom Isn't Free, Team America
What I don't want this to be is a chance for me, or anyone else, to be maudlin. I'm dead. That sucks, at least for me and my family and friends. But all the tears in the world aren't going to bring me back, so I would prefer that people remember the good things about me rather than mourning my loss. (If it turns out a specific number of tears will, in fact, bring me back to life, then by all means, break out the onions.) I had a pretty good life, as I noted above. Sure, all things being equal I would have preferred to have more time, but I have no business complaining with all the good fortune I've enjoyed in my life. So if you're up for that, put on a little 80s music (preferably vintage 1980-1984), grab a Coke and have a drink with me. If you have it, throw 'Freedom Isn't Free' from the Team America soundtrack in; if you can't laugh at that song, I think you need to lighten up a little. I'm dead, but if you're reading this, you're not, so take a moment to enjoy that happy fact.
"Our thoughts form the universe. They always matter."
Citizen G'Kar, Babylon 5
Believe it or not, one of the things I will miss most is not being able to blog any longer. The ability to put my thoughts on (virtual) paper and put them where people can read and respond to them has been marvelous, even if most people who have read my writings haven't agreed with them. If there is any hope for the long term success of democracy, it will be if people agree to listen to and try to understand their political opponents rather than simply seeking to crush them. While the blogosphere has its share of partisans, there are some awfully smart people making excellent arguments out there as well, and I know I have learned quite a bit since I began blogging. I flatter myself I may have made a good argument or two as well; if I didn't, please don't tell me. It has been a great five-plus years. I got to meet a lot of people who are way smarter than me, including such luminaries as Virginia Postrel and her husband Stephen (speaking strictly from a 'improving the species' perspective, it's tragic those two don't have kids, because they're both scary smart.), the estimable hilzoy and Sebastian of Obsidian Wings, Jeff Goldstein and Stephen Green, the men who consistently frustrated me with their mix of wit and wisdom I could never match, and I've no doubt left out a number of people to whom I apologize. Bottom line: if I got the chance to meet you through blogging, I enjoyed it. I'm only sorry I couldn't meet more of you. In particular I'd like to thank Jim Henley, who while we've never met has been a true comrade, whose words have taught me and whose support has been of great personal value to me. I would very much have enjoyed meeting Jim.
Blogging put me in touch with an inordinate number of smart people, an exhilarating if humbling experience. When I was young, I was smart, but the older I got, the more I realized just how dumb I was in comparison to truly smart people. But, to my credit, I think, I was at least smart enough to pay attention to the people with real brains and even occasionally learn something from them. It has been joy and a pleasure having the opportunity to do this.
"It's not fair."
"No. It's not. Death never is."
Captain John Sheridan and Dr. Stephen Franklin, Babylon 5
"They didn't even dig him a decent grave."
"Well, it's not how you're buried. It's how you're remembered."
Cimarron and Wil Andersen, The Cowboys
I suppose I should speak to the circumstances of my death. It would be nice to believe that I died leading men in battle, preferably saving their lives at the cost of my own. More likely I was caught by a marksman or an IED. But if there is an afterlife, I'm telling anyone who asks that I went down surrounded by hundreds of insurgents defending a village composed solely of innocent women and children. It'll be our little secret, ok?
I do ask (not that I'm in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes. I went to Iraq and did what I did for my reasons, not yours. My life isn't a chit to be used to bludgeon people to silence on either side. If you think the U.S. should stay in Iraq, don't drag me into it by claiming that somehow my death demands us staying in Iraq. If you think the U.S. ought to get out tomorrow, don't cite my name as an example of someone's life who was wasted by our mission in Iraq. I have my own opinions about what we should do about Iraq, but since I'm not around to expound on them I'd prefer others not try and use me as some kind of moral capital to support a position I probably didn't support. Further, this is tough enough on my family without their having to see my picture being used in some rally or my name being cited for some political purpose. You can fight political battles without hurting my family, and I'd prefer that you did so.
On a similar note, while you're free to think whatever you like about my life and death, if you think I wasted my life, I'll tell you you're wrong. We're all going to die of something. I died doing a job I loved. When your time comes, I hope you are as fortunate as I was.
"What an idiot! What a loser!"
Chaz Reingold, Wedding Crashers
"Oh and I don't want to die for you, but if dying's asked of me;
I'll bear that cross with honor, 'cause freedom don't come free."
American Soldier, Toby Keith
Those who know me through my writings on the Internet over the past five-plus years probably have wondered at times about my chosen profession. While I am not a Libertarian, I certainly hold strongly individualistic beliefs. Yet I have spent my life in a profession that is not generally known for rugged individualism. Worse, I volunteered to return to active duty knowing that the choice would almost certainly lead me to Iraq. The simple explanation might be that I was simply stupid, and certainly I make no bones about having done some dumb things in my life, but I don't think this can be chalked up to stupidity. Maybe I was inconsistent in my beliefs; there are few people who adhere religiously to the doctrines of their chosen philosophy, whatever that may be. But I don't think that was the case in this instance either.
As passionate as I am about personal freedom, I don't buy the claims of anarchists that humanity would be just fine without any government at all. There are too many people in the world who believe that they know best how people should live their lives, and many of them are more than willing to use force to impose those beliefs on others. A world without government simply wouldn't last very long; as soon as it was established, strongmen would immediately spring up to establish their fiefdoms. So there is a need for government to protect the people's rights. And one of the fundamental tools to do that is an army that can prevent outside agencies from imposing their rules on a society. A lot of people will protest that argument by noting that the people we are fighting in Iraq are unlikely to threaten the rights of the average American. That's certainly true; while our enemies would certainly like to wreak great levels of havoc on our society, the fact is they're not likely to succeed. But that doesn't mean there isn't still a need for an army (setting aside debates regarding whether ours is the right size at the moment). Americans are fortunate that we don't have to worry too much about people coming to try and overthrow us, but part of the reason we don't have to worry about that is because we have an army that is stopping anyone who would try.
Soldiers cannot have the option of opting out of missions because they don't agree with them: that violates the social contract. The duly-elected American government decided to go to war in Iraq. (Even if you maintain President Bush was not properly elected, Congress voted for war as well.) As a soldier, I have a duty to obey the orders of the President of the United States as long as they are Constitutional. I can no more opt out of missions I disagree with than I can ignore laws I think are improper. I do not consider it a violation of my individual rights to have gone to Iraq on orders because I raised my right hand and volunteered to join the army. Whether or not this mission was a good one, my participation in it was an affirmation of something I consider quite necessary to society. So if nothing else, I gave my life for a pretty important principle; I can (if you'll pardon the pun) live with that.
"It's all so brief, isn't it? A typical human lifespan is almost a hundred years. But it's barely a second compared to what's out there. It wouldn't be so bad if life didn't take so long to figure out. Seems you just start to get it right, and then...it's over."
Dr. Stephen Franklin, Babylon 5
I wish I could say I'd at least started to get it right. Although, in my defense, I think I batted a solid .250 or so. Not a superstar, but at least able to play in the big leagues. I'm afraid I can't really offer any deep secrets or wisdom. I lived my life better than some, worse than others, and I like to think that the world was a little better off for my having been here. Not very much, but then, few of us are destined to make more than a tiny dent in history's Green Monster. I would be lying if I didn't admit I would have liked to have done more, but it's a bit too late for that now, eh? The bottom line, for me, is that I think I can look back at my life and at least see a few areas where I may have made a tiny difference, and massive ego aside, that's probably not too bad.
"The flame also reminds us that life is precious. As each flame is unique; when it goes out, it's gone forever. There will never be another quite like it."
Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5
I write this in part, admittedly, because I would like to think that there's at least a little something out there to remember me by. Granted, this site will eventually vanish, being ephemeral in a very real sense of the word, but at least for a time it can serve as a tiny record of my contributions to the world. But on a larger scale, for those who knew me well enough to be saddened by my death, especially for those who haven't known anyone else lost to this war, perhaps my death can serve as a small reminder of the costs of war. Regardless of the merits of this war, or of any war, I think that many of us in America have forgotten that war means death and suffering in wholesale lots. A decision that for most of us in America was academic, whether or not to go to war in Iraq, had very real consequences for hundreds of thousands of people. Yet I was as guilty as anyone of minimizing those very real consequences in lieu of a cold discussion of theoretical merits of war and peace. Now I'm facing some very real consequences of that decision; who says life doesn't have a sense of humor?
But for those who knew me and feel this pain, I think it's a good thing to realize that this pain has been felt by thousands and thousands (probably millions, actually) of other people all over the world. That is part of the cost of war, any war, no matter how justified. If everyone who feels this pain keeps that in mind the next time we have to decide whether or not war is a good idea, perhaps it will help us to make a more informed decision. Because it is pretty clear that the average American would not have supported the Iraq War had they known the costs going in. I am far too cynical to believe that any future debate over war will be any less vitriolic or emotional, but perhaps a few more people will realize just what those costs can be the next time.
This may be a contradiction of my above call to keep politics out of my death, but I hope not. Sometimes going to war is the right idea. I think we've drawn that line too far in the direction of war rather than peace, but I'm a soldier and I know that sometimes you have to fight if you're to hold onto what you hold dear. But in making that decision, I believe we understate the costs of war; when we make the decision to fight, we make the decision to kill, and that means lives and families destroyed. Mine now falls into that category; the next time the question of war or peace comes up, if you knew me at least you can understand a bit more just what it is you're deciding to do, and whether or not those costs are worth it.
"This is true love. You think this happens every day?"
Westley, The Princess Bride
"Good night, my love, the brightest star in my sky."
John Sheridan, Babylon 5
This is the hardest part. While I certainly have no desire to die, at this point I no longer have any worries. That is not true of the woman who made my life something to enjoy rather than something merely to survive. She put up with all of my faults, and they are myriad, she endured separations again and again...I cannot imagine being more fortunate in love than I have been with Amanda. Now she has to go on without me, and while a cynic might observe she's better off, I know that this is a terrible burden I have placed on her, and I would give almost anything if she would not have to bear it. It seems that is not an option. I cannot imagine anything more painful than that, and if there is an afterlife, this is a pain I'll bear forever.
I wasn't the greatest husband. I could have done so much more, a realization that, as it so often does, comes too late to matter. But I cherished every day I was married to Amanda. When everything else in my life seemed dark, she was always there to light the darkness. It is difficult to imagine my life being worth living without her having been in it. I hope and pray that she goes on without me and enjoys her life as much as she deserves. I can think of no one more deserving of happiness than her.
"I will see you again, in the place where no shadows fall."
Ambassador Delenn, Babylon 5
I don't know if there is an afterlife; I tend to doubt it, to be perfectly honest. But if there is any way possible, Amanda, then I will live up to Delenn's words, somehow, some way. I love you.
***
[A note from hilzoy, the friend he asked to put this post up: people are leaving their respects to Andy here, here, and here.]
Posted at 11:18 AM · Personal · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
Andrew Olmsted
Plato*"
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Knowledge Is Power
Knowledge Is Power: "If your desk isn’t cluttered, you probably aren’t doing your job"
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
American Thinker: Cloward-Piven Government
American Thinker: Cloward-Piven Government
Cloward-Piven Government
By James Simpson
It is time to cast aside all remaining doubt. President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite, in fact.
In September of last year, American Thinker published my article, Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. Part of a series, it connected then-presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government. Since then, the story of that strategy has found its way across the blogosphere, onto the airwaves of radio stations across the country, the Glenn Beck television show, Bill O'Reilly, and now Mark Levin.
The methodology is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and we can all be grateful to David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks for originally exposing and explaining it to us. He describes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May 1966 Nation magazine article titled "The Weight of the Poor," they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.
The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces ... for major economic reform at the national level."
They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the "Motor Voter" act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him.
As we now know, ACORN was one of the chief drivers of high-risk mortgage lending that eventually led to the financial crisis. But the Motor Voter law was another component of the strategy. It created vast vulnerabilities in our electoral system, which ACORN then exploited.
ACORN's vote registration scandals throughout the U.S. are predictable fallout.
The Motor Voter law has also been used to open another vulnerability in the system: the registration of vast numbers of illegal aliens, who then reliably vote Democrat. Herein lies the real reason Democrats are so anxious for open borders, security be damned.
It should be clear to anyone with a mind and two eyes that this president and this Congress do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing this strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations, and laws. As Rahm Emmanuel said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."
The real goal of "health care" legislation, the real goal of "cap-and-trade," and the real goal of the "stimulus" is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to the government to control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda. These initiatives are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves except in their ability to deliver power. They and will make matters much worse, for that is their design.
This time, in addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized, and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. As Charles Rangel* said, "the middle class will be too distracted to fight."
These people are our enemies. They don't use guns, yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined, and duplicitous as the communists we faced in the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and bush wars across the globe, and the Nazis we faced in World War II.
It is time we fully internalized and digested this fact, with all its ugly ramifications. These people have violated countless laws and could be prosecuted, had we the political power. Not only are their policies unconstitutional, but deliberately so -- the goal being to make the Constitution irrelevant. Their spending is off the charts and will drive us into hyperinflation, but it could be rescinded, had we the political power. These policies are toxic, but they could be stopped and reversed, had we the political power. Their ideologies are poisonous, but they could be exposed for what they are, with long jail sentences as an object lesson, had we the political power.
Every single citizen who cares about this country should be spending every minute of his or her spare time lobbying, organizing, writing, and planning. Fight every initiative they launch. It is all destructive. If we are to root out this evil, it is critical that in 2010 we elect competent, principled leaders willing to defend our Constitution and our country. Otherwise, the malevolent cabal that occupies the government today will become too entrenched.
After that, all bets are off.
Cloward-Piven Government
By James Simpson
It is time to cast aside all remaining doubt. President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite, in fact.
In September of last year, American Thinker published my article, Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. Part of a series, it connected then-presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government. Since then, the story of that strategy has found its way across the blogosphere, onto the airwaves of radio stations across the country, the Glenn Beck television show, Bill O'Reilly, and now Mark Levin.
The methodology is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and we can all be grateful to David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks for originally exposing and explaining it to us. He describes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May 1966 Nation magazine article titled "The Weight of the Poor," they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.
The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces ... for major economic reform at the national level."
They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the "Motor Voter" act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him.
As we now know, ACORN was one of the chief drivers of high-risk mortgage lending that eventually led to the financial crisis. But the Motor Voter law was another component of the strategy. It created vast vulnerabilities in our electoral system, which ACORN then exploited.
ACORN's vote registration scandals throughout the U.S. are predictable fallout.
The Motor Voter law has also been used to open another vulnerability in the system: the registration of vast numbers of illegal aliens, who then reliably vote Democrat. Herein lies the real reason Democrats are so anxious for open borders, security be damned.
It should be clear to anyone with a mind and two eyes that this president and this Congress do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing this strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations, and laws. As Rahm Emmanuel said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."
The real goal of "health care" legislation, the real goal of "cap-and-trade," and the real goal of the "stimulus" is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to the government to control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda. These initiatives are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves except in their ability to deliver power. They and will make matters much worse, for that is their design.
This time, in addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized, and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. As Charles Rangel* said, "the middle class will be too distracted to fight."
These people are our enemies. They don't use guns, yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined, and duplicitous as the communists we faced in the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and bush wars across the globe, and the Nazis we faced in World War II.
It is time we fully internalized and digested this fact, with all its ugly ramifications. These people have violated countless laws and could be prosecuted, had we the political power. Not only are their policies unconstitutional, but deliberately so -- the goal being to make the Constitution irrelevant. Their spending is off the charts and will drive us into hyperinflation, but it could be rescinded, had we the political power. These policies are toxic, but they could be stopped and reversed, had we the political power. Their ideologies are poisonous, but they could be exposed for what they are, with long jail sentences as an object lesson, had we the political power.
Every single citizen who cares about this country should be spending every minute of his or her spare time lobbying, organizing, writing, and planning. Fight every initiative they launch. It is all destructive. If we are to root out this evil, it is critical that in 2010 we elect competent, principled leaders willing to defend our Constitution and our country. Otherwise, the malevolent cabal that occupies the government today will become too entrenched.
After that, all bets are off.
Monday, July 05, 2010
The Clue Batting Cage: Out of the Doldrums
The Clue Batting Cage: Out of the Doldrums: "ne of my favorite books from my childhood was Norton Juster's 'The Phantom Tollbooth'. I've read it many times, and it had a significant impact on my imagination & sense of humor -- and the way I think. In other words, who I am."
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Middle Wife
The 'Middle Wife' by an Anonymous 2nd grade teacher .
I've been teaching now for about fifteen years. I have two kids myself, but the best birth story I know is the one I saw in my own second grade classroom a few years back.
When I was a kid, I loved show-and-tell. So I always have a few sessions with my students. It helps them get over shyness and usually, show-and-tell is pretty tame. Kids bring in pet turtles, model airplanes, pictures of fish they catch, stuff like that. And I never, ever place any boundaries or limitations on them. If they want to lug it in to school and talk about it, they're welcome.
Well, one day this little girl, Erica, a very bright, very outgoing kid, takes her turn and waddles up to the front of the class with a pillow stuffed under her sweater.
She holds up a snapshot of an infant. 'This is Luke, my baby brother, and I'm going to tell you about his birthday.'
'First, Mom and Dad made him as a symbol of their love, and then Dad put a seed in my Mom's stomach, and Luke grew in there. He ate for nine months through an umbrella cord.'
(She's standing there with her hands on the pillow, and I'm trying not to laugh and wishing I had my camcorder with me. The kids are watching her in amazement.)
'Then, about two Saturdays ago, my Mom starts saying and going, 'Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh!' Erica puts a hand behind her back and groans.
'She walked around the house for, like an hour, 'Oh, oh, oh!' (Now this kid is doing an hysterical duck walk and groaning.)
'My Dad called the middle wife. She delivers babies, but she doesn't have a sign on the car like the Domino's man. They got my Mom to lie down in
bed like this..' (Then Erica lies down with her back against the wall.)
'And then, pop! My Mom had this bag of water she kept in there in case he got thirsty, and it just blew up and spilled all over the bed, like psshhheew!' (This kid has her legs spread with her little hands miming water flowing away. It was too much!)
'Then the middle wife starts saying 'push, push,' and 'breathe, breathe.
They started counting, but never even got past ten. Then, all of a sudden, out comes my brother. He was covered in yucky stuff that they all said was from Mom's play-center, (placenta) so there must be a lot of toys inside there. When he got out, the middle wife spanked him for crawling up in there.'
Then Erica stood up, took a big theatrical bow and returned to her seat.
I'm sure I applauded the loudest. Ever since then, when it's show-and-tell day, I bring my camcorder, just in case another 'Middle Wife' comes along.
I've been teaching now for about fifteen years. I have two kids myself, but the best birth story I know is the one I saw in my own second grade classroom a few years back.
When I was a kid, I loved show-and-tell. So I always have a few sessions with my students. It helps them get over shyness and usually, show-and-tell is pretty tame. Kids bring in pet turtles, model airplanes, pictures of fish they catch, stuff like that. And I never, ever place any boundaries or limitations on them. If they want to lug it in to school and talk about it, they're welcome.
Well, one day this little girl, Erica, a very bright, very outgoing kid, takes her turn and waddles up to the front of the class with a pillow stuffed under her sweater.
She holds up a snapshot of an infant. 'This is Luke, my baby brother, and I'm going to tell you about his birthday.'
'First, Mom and Dad made him as a symbol of their love, and then Dad put a seed in my Mom's stomach, and Luke grew in there. He ate for nine months through an umbrella cord.'
(She's standing there with her hands on the pillow, and I'm trying not to laugh and wishing I had my camcorder with me. The kids are watching her in amazement.)
'Then, about two Saturdays ago, my Mom starts saying and going, 'Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh!' Erica puts a hand behind her back and groans.
'She walked around the house for, like an hour, 'Oh, oh, oh!' (Now this kid is doing an hysterical duck walk and groaning.)
'My Dad called the middle wife. She delivers babies, but she doesn't have a sign on the car like the Domino's man. They got my Mom to lie down in
bed like this..' (Then Erica lies down with her back against the wall.)
'And then, pop! My Mom had this bag of water she kept in there in case he got thirsty, and it just blew up and spilled all over the bed, like psshhheew!' (This kid has her legs spread with her little hands miming water flowing away. It was too much!)
'Then the middle wife starts saying 'push, push,' and 'breathe, breathe.
They started counting, but never even got past ten. Then, all of a sudden, out comes my brother. He was covered in yucky stuff that they all said was from Mom's play-center, (placenta) so there must be a lot of toys inside there. When he got out, the middle wife spanked him for crawling up in there.'
Then Erica stood up, took a big theatrical bow and returned to her seat.
I'm sure I applauded the loudest. Ever since then, when it's show-and-tell day, I bring my camcorder, just in case another 'Middle Wife' comes along.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical presents Boned Jello
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical presents Boned Jello:
New Computer
"Put a monitor on each computer, set them side by side, turn both computers on, install Synergy (free!), and use one keyboard/mouse to control them both seamlessly.
You can thank me after you try it, heh.
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 6/26/10 8:47 PM
~
I'll second the vote for synergy.
Or, if you have vmware, you can make a 'copy' of your old computer and run it inside a virtual machine on your new desktop
(the converter may be available for free, and vmware player is also free - so it should only cost you time)
# posted by Blogger pdwalker : 6/26/10 8:59 PM"
New Computer
"Put a monitor on each computer, set them side by side, turn both computers on, install Synergy (free!), and use one keyboard/mouse to control them both seamlessly.
You can thank me after you try it, heh.
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 6/26/10 8:47 PM
~
I'll second the vote for synergy.
Or, if you have vmware, you can make a 'copy' of your old computer and run it inside a virtual machine on your new desktop
(the converter may be available for free, and vmware player is also free - so it should only cost you time)
# posted by Blogger pdwalker : 6/26/10 8:59 PM"
Friday, June 25, 2010
http://www.keeskennis.blogspot.com/
http://www.keeskennis.blogspot.com/
So the witch, slowly enters the front door of a sex shop. Obviously very unstable on her feet, she wobbles the few feet across the store to the counter. Finally arriving at the counter and grabbing it for support, stuttering she asks the sales clerk, "Dooo Youuuu have dilllldosss?"
The clerk, politely trying not to burst out laughing, replies, "Yes we do have dildos. Actually we carry many different models."
The witch then asks: "Doooo youuuu carrryy AAA pppinkk onnees, Tttenn inchessss lllong aaandd aabboutt ttwoo inchesss ththiickk... aaand rrunns by bbaatteries?"
The clerk responds, "Yes we do."
"Ddddooo yyoooouuuu kknnnoooww hhhowww tttooo ttturrrnnn ttthe ssunoooffabbitch offfff?"
So the witch, slowly enters the front door of a sex shop. Obviously very unstable on her feet, she wobbles the few feet across the store to the counter. Finally arriving at the counter and grabbing it for support, stuttering she asks the sales clerk, "Dooo Youuuu have dilllldosss?"
The clerk, politely trying not to burst out laughing, replies, "Yes we do have dildos. Actually we carry many different models."
The witch then asks: "Doooo youuuu carrryy AAA pppinkk onnees, Tttenn inchessss lllong aaandd aabboutt ttwoo inchesss ththiickk... aaand rrunns by bbaatteries?"
The clerk responds, "Yes we do."
"Ddddooo yyoooouuuu kknnnoooww hhhowww tttooo ttturrrnnn ttthe ssunoooffabbitch offfff?"
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical presents Boned Jello
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical presents Boned Jello: "Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
Monday, June 21, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Velociworld: Comment on A Maudlin Aside
Velociworld: Comment on A Maudlin Aside: "'There ain't nothing we can do as individuals that the government can't do more poorly, more insensitively, and more inefficiently.
It's the American Way.'
Au contraire, mon fr�re. It's not just the American Way, it's the Governemnt Way, irrespective of nationality."
It's the American Way.'
Au contraire, mon fr�re. It's not just the American Way, it's the Governemnt Way, irrespective of nationality."
The Oil Drum | Drumbeat: June 19, 2010
The Oil Drum | Drumbeat: June 19, 2010: "The mature offshore Cantarell fields continued to decline, producing 501,000 barrels per day in the June 1-13 period compared with 511,000 in the May 1-30 period, according to the hydrocarbons commission.
...Pemex has seen oil production decline from a peak of 3.4 million barrels a day in 2004, mostly as the decades-long 'easy oil' from Cantarell has been difficult to replace."
...Pemex has seen oil production decline from a peak of 3.4 million barrels a day in 2004, mostly as the decades-long 'easy oil' from Cantarell has been difficult to replace."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
