Maggie's Farm

Coyotes have been moving south into the eastern US since the 1970s, presumably from Ontario. About 30% larger (50 lbs and more) than the western coyote, they have some wolf DNA from hybridization in Canada.

They have adapted to suburbia, where they prey on cats (that's a good thing), small ankle-biter dogs (another good thing), mice, rats, fawns, geese, etc. So although they do not really belong here in New England, they eat things that we don't mind their eating. And they have become common.

Massachusetts poet Catherine Reid has written a book about the coyotes which have now entended their range to the southern states, with great success, despite hunting, trapping, etc. The more of them you kill, the larger their litters. They are here to stay - at least until wolves return. Wolves kill coyotes, just as coyotes kill foxes.

William Chace on Affirmative Inaction:

Data from more than 1,300 four-year colleges and universities in the United States show that the use of race and ethnicity in admissions declined sharply after the mid-1990s, especially at public institutions. The proportion of public four-year colleges considering minority status in admissions has fallen from more than 60 percent to about 35 percent. Among private institutions, the drop during the same years has been notable but less dramatic, from 57 percent to 45 percent. The major decline came after 1995, when the campaign against affirmative action intensified, and schools, particularly public ones, thrown on the defensive, retreated. They were reacting not only to actual litigation but also to its threat. While colleges and universities that are considered elite are more likely to have practiced affirmative action and to have been more protective of it, even they have retreated. Few innovative or vigorous forms of affirmative action are now in play in the face of courts and federal agencies exercising strict scrutiny when examining admissions procedures and in the face of an increasingly suspicious citizenry.

Another reality is redefining, and probably weakening, the meaning of affirmative action. Although few schools publicize the fact, one of the central historic principles giving rise to affirmative action is being undermined. President Johnson’s speech assumed that affirmative action would help the descendants of former slaves (he made no mention of Hispanics). That assumption from yesteryear is out of sync with today’s realities. Affirmative action more and more functions to open the campus not only to the descendants of former slaves but to black students with different cultural and political heritages. Once championed, as in Johnson’s speech, as a means of reparation or restitution, affirmative action now turns out to be helping hundreds and hundreds of young people who have suffered the wounds of old-fashioned American racism little or not at all. More than a quarter of the black students enrolled at selective American colleges and universities are immigrants or the children of immigrants. African-American students born in the United States thus turn out to be more underrepresented (given their presence in the U.S. population) at selective colleges than one might imagine. At some of the most exclusive institutions (Columbia, Princeton, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania), no less than two-fifths of those admitted as “black” are of immigrant origin. Such facts, as they come into view, blunt the force of arguments favoring affirmative action. Diversity and restitution are better reasons than diversity alone, but restitution seems less and less in play.

Diversity itself, moreover, seems weaker and weaker as an argument for affirmative action when many campuses now appear, at least to the public at large, more diverse than ever before. The increasing presence on campus of students from myriad ethnic groups (Indian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, Iranian, and many others) and the consequent reduction of “white” students (witness student populations at the University of California at Berkeley, UCLA, Stanford, USC, Columbia, and other schools) undercut the notion that American higher education is still unfairly monochromatic.

Prof. Chace favors affirmative action only for blacks with American heritage.

From Higher Ed, at Lew Rockwell:

Mr. and Ms. Moses must make sure the twins qualify for the Ivy league if that’s where they want to go. Don’t want them ending “up having to go, God forbid, to Rutgers,” she writes. So the twins have had plenty of SAT and ACT tutoring at $125 per session. Of course on top of this are the fees paid for the actual testing and travel to all these places of higher learning. Plus, an additional consultant is on the job to counsel the male twin to not do anything stupid that could jeopardize his chance of admission. Moses considers the consultant a bargain at $701.25 so far.

$701.25? Around here, they want a $3000 retainer.

I think things are changing, though. It's not like the old days. Although the clubby signaling part of the elite schools still is a factor in life, it's much more of a factor in social life than in the world of work and career. From an academic standpoint, the value in an elite degree is that you were able to get in there when you were 17 or 18.

It says nothing about what value you have to offer, today.

When I went to college, they interviewed to see whether you had good deportment and manners, and could discuss Milton, Rembrandt and Ovid intelligently in a conversation. You could flunk out, and everybody had tough requirements for graduation (including Math).

In the so-called elite colleges today, I think they are looking for just a few things:

1) Can this person fill the oboe slot in the orchestra?
2) Can this person help make our girls' Squash Team a contender?
3) Can the Dad write us a check for $400,000?
4) Is there any reason to take this kid instead of the Asian kid with better scores and grades and more developed talents (other than the fact that he or she isn't Asian)?

Carter at First Things:

I’ve been mad at just about anything you can imagine.

Except unicorns. I’ve never been angry at unicorns.

A chat with a Physical Therapist today at noon. She told me that they enter the codes of diagnosis etc, and Medicare or Medicaid generates a response telling them how many sessions the patient can have, of what duration, and at what payment.

"What do you do here?", I asked.

She said that their department's policy is this: Patient gets whatever is reimbursable. If 8 sessions are allowed and they only need 4, they get 8. It can't hurt. If 8 are allowed and they need 30, they get 8.

"We don't even bother anymore asking them to pay for more therapy if they need it. If it's not free, they never take it."

A re-post from a few years ago -

I have always been interested in the history of the idea of retirement. Not interested because it is something I want to do (I could financially do it today if I wanted to), but interested in why an intact, healthy person would not want to fully participate in society by being a productive member.

My Grandpa worked until he was felled by a stroke at 86, and my Dad worked until macular degeneration made him incapable of driving around age 76.

Private pensions (especially from the railroads) began in the late 1800s but it wasn't until the New Deal and Social Security that the option to be put to pasture became widely available. Roosevelt was, of course, highly motivated to remove workers from the labor force in an effort to reduce unemployment, and that was the main impetus for Social Security.

In 1900, 65% of men over 65 worked. By 2000, it was 17%. Of course, nowadays many jobs build in forced retirement. I saw some stats somewhere that about 40% of retired men return to some form of paid work within three years of retirement, but I don't recall the source.

A feature piece at CNN, Rethinking Retirement: More Boomers Chosing to Work doesn't offer stats, but does give credit to the phenomenon. A quote from the piece:

Although some employees sitting in cubicles may long for the end to their work lives, sun-drenched days with tee-times, knitting and visiting the grandchildren, Howard Stone said retirees shouldn't retire, at least in the traditional sense of the word.

"Those who say 'I'll never work again' are making a major, major mistake. Because they're going to find themselves adrift, away from a community purpose and a sense," he said.

I found a good piece, with lots of numbers, on the economic history of retirement in the US. It begins:

One of the most striking changes in the American labor market over the twentieth century has been the virtual disappearance of older men from the labor force.  Moen (1987) and Costa (1998) estimate that the labor force participation rate of men age 65 and older declined from 78 percent in 1880 to less than 20 percent in 1990 (see Table 1).  In recent decades, the labor force participation rate of somewhat younger men (age 55-64) has been declining as well.  When coupled with the increase in life expectancy over this period, it is clear that men today can expect to spend a much larger proportion of their lives in retirement, relative to men living a century ago.

You can read the whole thing here.

Comment from Dr. Bliss: Excellent subject. A few random thoughts:

- I think many folks want to be able to retire. Many enjoy their jobs much more once they have the financial freedom to quit.

- People I have talked to who have retired young, such as cops with full pensions at age 45, and Wall Streeters who walk away with bags of money around the same age, almost always take on a second career of some sort.

- Psychologically, being retired can feel like being unemployed or sent out to pasture. When people retire in their 50s or early-mid 60s, a workplace loses their experienced wise ones who have "seen it all before", and the experienced wise ones feel useless.

- A comment about people who "hate their jobs." People love to bitch about their jobs. But without the job, they lose a lot of human contact, a structured place to use their brains or abilities, and a role in the world.

- Hedonistic retirement: The idea of the fun and sun and travel retirement has been sold hard to the middle class over the past 30 years. From what I have seen, it isn't all it's cracked up to be. A vacation can be a refreshing change of pace and change of senery, but an endless vacation can be like a meal made of all dessert courses: cloying and unnutritious.

- People who do not return to work after retirement, but who jump into unpaid labors of love, like community service projects, local politics, working for charities, churches, and non-profits, often seem to feel a good sense of satisfaction in "giving back."

- "Meaningful work." I hate that expression. All work is useful and contributes to society, whether it is raising one's kids, milking the cows, flipping burgers, or selling bonds. People who use that expression should think hard about what they mean by it. Furthermore, folks who want their work to provide them with meaning may be barking up the wrong tree.

This was a fun piece at The Atlantic, In the Basement of the Ivory Tower:

The idea that a university education is for everyone is a destructive myth. An instructor at a “college of last resort” explains why.

The Retiring NEA GC explains teachers' unions for you (h/t to Wizbang):

From Mauzy's Pensioner's Dilemma at American Thinker:

The right to a leisurely retirement has been imprinted on at least five generations of Americans, which is why so few consider whether it is practical or even desirable to guarantee that everyone should meander through the last twenty years of life.  Degradation intensifies when mental activity abates, and mental activity abates when there is nothing to strive toward and there are no problems to solve. Work for compensation is desirable because work for compensation is an expression of value creation, and value creation instills a sense of self worth.  Work keeps the mind and body alive.

Work or play are personal choices; neither choice should be subsidized or deterred, nor should the choice be relegated to a disinterested third party.  Whenever the individual abrogates responsibility, he surrenders his independence to another people's intentions, and another people's intentions are always driven by what is best for the other person.

Algore: Forests are a Moral and National Security Issue or Something.

What the heck is he talking about? Forests and woods and global cooling or warming or whatever, and what?

There is something deeply the matter with this poor fellow. I mean, besides his greed for money and massages and estates and jetting around the world.

Why doesn't he donate his tobacco farm and his mining land to a conservation organization so happy trees can grow there? At Maggie's, we support all rational land and habitat conservation efforts, and we even are big supporters of good sustainable nuclear energy.

And who are all of these wealthy consumerists who applaud him? Probably people who want all of the little people like me to change their ways of life. It's not gonna happen.

Leef: Overselling of Higher Education Gives Us Credential Inflation.

Next thing you know, an MA won't have much meaning. Wait a minute, that's already happened. 

Is there any rational reason for High School to be four years?

Is there any rational reason for colleges to be four years?

Why not six years? Why not three? Why not make High School just end when you learn what they set out to teach you? Why doesn't every high school make up a list of educational goals which, when met, you're outta there?

When my Dad went to grammar school (and High School, too), they threw you out of there when they felt you knew enough. He went to college at 16, got drafted out at 18. The Army sent him to Basic, then sent him to grad school, and thus his career began.

Are manners all about social signaling? I don't think so. I find bad manners to be an aversive stimulus, and poor table manners cause me to lose my appetite. To term that a "signal" is to stretch the definition. Once a society agrees on manners, unmannerly behavior becomes offensive.

It's not rocket science. The basics, for kids:

Take your elbows off the table.
Don’t talk with your mouth full.
Don't pick up a fork until everyone is seated and the hostess picks up her fork.
Eat slowly, and converse during meals.
Look people in the eye when you speak to them.
Avoid talking about yourself: Assume that only relatives and close friends care.
Say "Please" and "Thank you," and say "How do you do?" when introduced to elders.
Give a firm handshake.
Write your thank-you notes in a timely fashion.

Last Friday we had a guest post by Rug Rag about his frustrations with his internet marketing.

This week, I see at The Other McCain a post relevant to that one, titled Stupid Google Tricks:

“Being ranked in the top 5 for something on Google and being ranked 25th or 125th can be the difference between selling your crappy website to AOL for $315 million and going out of business.” – James Joyner, Outside the Beltway

It feels like the first time I ever heard Over the Rainbow sung.

Capital collection, distribution, and creation is a global industry now, and it doesn't really require buildings in New York anymore. Bad for New York City in the long run, but it's great for the world. Capital is the world's most important commodity and even the most powerful governments must now bow at the altar of free market capital.

Wall Street is now a global, virtual, electronic street which is now, in many ways, run by computers.  Decline and Fall, at NYM.

Mead has a blog for his college course:

At Bard College I’m teaching a modified version of the Yale Grand Strategy curriculum developed by John Gaddis, Charles Hill and Paul Kennedy to a group of undergraduates this semester and the students have been generous enough to agree to share this experience with the online world.

Looks like good fun. He begins with Sun Tzu.

At Liberty Pundits:

Here’s the quote:  “If we’re fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line,” President Obama told the Chamber of Commerce on Monday morning.

Really, Barry?  And what if the company fails, do they share in the loss?

If an employee wishes to share in the risk of profits and losses, he can buy shares like anybody else.

Prof B explains it in legal detail: Obama Preaches the False Religion of Corporate Social Responsibility

The keenest sorrow is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all of our adversities.

Sophocles

We had to destroy the village to save it. As SDA says, Affirmative Action meets Wild Kingdom. Hubris never ends well.