Continuing my rant on the media

Continuing my rant on the media, I will admit to not watching Live! with Dan Abrams, but I do, from time to time, click over to his show during the commercials of another. The thing I noticed last night was that Dan both opened his show and closed his show with Brittney Spears. The opening segment went on for at least 10 minutes at which time I gave up flipping over to that channel disgusted that so much air time had been given over to Brittney.

When you think of how much time these so-called news outlets spend on crap, is it really any wonder why Americans are so ill informed of world happenings? Now the suits will say the reason they cover crap like Anna Nicole, Brittney, and OJ is because that's what people want. And to that I say Bull Shit! The real reason is the same reason we don't have any real reporting on any of the Presidential candidates, reporting isn't easy; reporting costs money. It is so much easier to just pick up a tabloid or go to a website and see what the latest exploits of the rich and famous than it is to do an critical look at why there have been so many food recalls lately.

There is so much news out there that isn't being reported, and so much more news just waiting to be dug up. It's a pretty said statement, but they only TV coverage I saw of the falling dollar was on the Colbert Report. While there was all sorts of coverage of the failing housing market and the “sub-prime meltdown” there has been no coverage of why this has happened, the only discussion on the causes of this problem I've heard was on the Thom Hartmann show. What we get instead is the same news stories told over and over, and to break it up a bit we get hours of celebrity crap. Lou Dobbs gets an hour every day to blame every bad thing that happens in the US on illegal immigrants, yet they don't have enough time to cover all the other times Blackwater went cowboy and killed civilians.

While MSNBC runs their annoying “Doc Block” about life in jail, they leave the actual news aspect of what they are covering to the Discovery Channel. Koppel on Discovery will actually cover the part of the story that is important, the fact that we are running out of room in our jails and prisons.

MSM Hearts Hillary

You gotta love the MSM. According to them there is no way for anybody to win the the Democratic nomination except Hillary Clinton. Wow, it's amazing how their time machine works now, but didn't work in the build up to war. If you listen to the media, if Edwards wins in Iowa it kills Obama everywhere else and Edwards won't be able to win anywhere else (Hillary wins). At the same time the media also says if Obama wins Iowa it doesn't matter because Bill Clinton sat out Iowa and Edwards will never get the nomination without the first big win in Iowa (Hillary wins again). The only other option, according to the media is for Hillary to win in Iowa which means she will win everywhere else. So what is the fascination the MSM has with Hillary? Is it just a matter of the MSM willing Hillary to become the nominee? I would have to guess that if Hillary does indeed become the nominee, the very media that is in love with her now will be on the attack in the general.

When it comes to debates the talking heads all say as long as Hillary doesn't lose she wins. What the hell does that mean? In every post debate wrap-up I have seen (to be fair I haven't seen them all), there is at least one person saying Hillary won. In fact, only the last debate on MSNBC that I've seen has the number of people saying Hillary won been so low; Pat Buchanan was the only one stating that Hillary won the debate this time, but the others were quick to point out she didn't lose (however that seems to kick dirt in the face of all of their past post-debate analysis when they declared Hillary the defacto winner by “not losing”). In the pre-debate coverage it is all about how do the other candidates make themselves stand out from Hillary.

When covering the other candidates it seems to always be from the angle of how do they catch up with Hillary Clinton. When you listen to some of the people in the media they state that every Democratic candidate BUT Hillary is too far left to win. While few in the media actually come out and say that, t's implied by saying things like “John Edwards is courting the far left side of the party,” and “Hillary is a candidate that even some Republicans are looking at and saying they could live with her policies.”

Really though, this is a rant about the Media- not Hillary Clinton. I welcome reporting on Hillary along with all the other candidates as long as it is about something. Right now all anybody in in the MSM is doing is reporting on the reporting. I don't think I buy the case some are trying to make that Hillary is the least threating Democratic candidate to the Corporate overlords that control the media (at least not yet, we'll see where this Dan Rather stuff goes) and that is the reason they are so addicted to her. I think it is much simpler than that: lazy reporting (if one can even call it that). There is no journalism going on, these media outlets commission a poll and then yammer on and on about it. There's no digging around, there's no critical looks at her positions, there isn't really any arguments for or against what she is saying. It's not even just picking the low hanging fruit, it's buying the fruit that has all ready been picked, cleaned, and dyed to appeal to the eye regardless of the actual substance that fruit contains.

When someone tries to do a halfway thoughtful analysis of some of the claims the media is making, the discussion is steered right back to where it began. If someone tries to put some of these polling numbers into context, they are told how wrong they are and that the only context the poll numbers need are the polls themselves. Their argument is that the poll numbers are in line with the other polls, and since those numbers have always been in one candidates favor, they will always be in that candidates favor. But when reality is pointed out that in the past this is rarely the case, the media is quick to say this time is different. The past cannot be a predictor of what's to come this time they state because: Currently we have a very unpopular president, there is a woman candidate, there is an African American candidate, Democrats just want someone who can win, the campaign season started earlier this time, every single national poll has Hillary in the lead, one of the candidates is a former first lady, Republicans don't have a clear front runner, or any number of other nonsense they can come up with.

I have no problem with Hillary being the nominee (I do happen to think there are better candidates though), but can the media at least pretend that we still live in some sort of democracy? If we are to believe the media, all the other candidates should just drop out right now and we shouldn't even have a primary process. In fact we don't even need an election in 2008, Hillary won. I guess I really shouldn't expect anything more from an industry that punishes those who accurately report the news, and dare to ask a couple of difficult questions.

The Mad Money take on the UAW strike

So I was watching Hardball yesterday, and they had the Mad Money guy on there to talk about the UAW/GM strike. He said this is all about union busting, and I have to think that this was being thought about at GM. However, what he said next was, that the only way to save GM was for GM to win the labor negotiations and break the union. Mr. Mad Money said the only way for the union to get the job security it wants is for the union to be destroyed because no American Business can operate with a union as strong as the UAW. And this time you have to give some credit where credit is due to Chris Mathews when he asked Crammer how an ex-CEO of GM can say "what is good for GM is good for America," when you are taking all of the jobs out of America.

Crammer's argument is all about the shareholders as evident for this comment:

"If GM is successful and they bust the union, I'm tellin' you you're going to have a five fold increase in this stock. And in the end, this is America and that's what we care about... Well, I think if you root for UAW, than you should just let GM go away.”

He seems to be saying in his rant that if you want to keep manufacturing in America, it must be non-union and you must allow these companies to move these non-union jobs to other counties. It seems to me what he is trying to say is that if a manufacturing company is based in the US even if everything it manufactures is done so in other counties than that company is still manufacturing in the US.

The thing is, if GM were to bust the union, do you really think Ford and Chrysler wouldn't try and do the same exact thing? Next would come the suppliers, and then the steel workers, and then every other union in America and I'm sorry but that's not ok. We don't make the US more competitive on the world market by knocking it down. It seems like a lot of these people would love it if workers in the US would work for the same amount as they do in China and live in Company owned slums connected to the factory. But these people forget that if people don't make money, how can they be expected to spend money. If people only made $5/hr in this country do they really think people would still buy cars, or DVDs, or Toys, or anything else? If these companies actually got what they wanted and only paid people minimum wage and no benefits then there would be thousands of companies failing by the end of the quarter and thousand more by the end of the year. The entire economy would be in ruins in the blink of an eye.

At least Crammer did concede that some kind of Government run health care would help to save American jobs, but he is dead wrong about busting all unions.

Frustration

I know a lot of my posts have been about education, but I feel that it is an important subject. The reason is, the quality of education in this country is something that affects every single person living in this country, even if they themselves aren't in school or don't have children in schools. The students in school today are the future doctors, inventors, lawyers, and yes even future Presidents. Every single person has a personal stake in the quality of education. The people in school right now are my future co-workers or employees. They are the people that are going to build my house, grow my food, and save my life. Just because people don't see how education impacts their lives doesn't mean that impact isn't there. We need to make people realize that improving education, improves their lives.

The cold hard truth is that right now in Michigan schools are endangered. Republicans won't let anything through the Senate that doesn't include massive cuts to much needed services and therefore are causing schools to gasp for air.

The sad part is that schools aren't going to get any help to improve themselves anytime soon. Schools have to try to tackle large issues on their own, all while giving students a quality education. If education is continually over looked, things will never get better in Michigan. You think it's bad now, keep cutting spending for education and see how bad things get.

Technology in Schools

So the iPod idea was a little blown out of proportion by the MSM (big surprise), but I hope that it opens a discussion of the role of technology in education, or really the lack thereof right now. As I've stated in my iPod post, industry is using technology for many different things, including using mp3 players as training tools, so if schools are supposed to ready students for the “real world” why isn't technology playing a larger role in education?

Even stocking shelves at the local supermarket requires you to scan bar codes and it is only going to get more technology dependent. If you walk into many class rooms around the country though you'll be lucky to find one computer in a class room of thirty. Right now if you enter the workforce and you don't know Ctrl+Alt+Delete you are screwed. Technology is supposed to be the future of Michigan's economy, and if that is true why aren't we preparing our students for that?

Education has a lot of problems, and it seems clear that it requires new ways of thinking in order to truly improve education.

iPods & Schools

The iPod idea is already starting to make some waves, but this idea though isn't one that should be discarded right away however. Let's not forget where the idea came from, Duke University (and I'm sure there were others but I not sure who they were) began giving iPods to every incoming freshmen.

Right now I am helping a company develop a new training system to get it's new employees up to speed faster and more efficiently. Right now this company gives an mp3 player to all of the new associates for the first few months to help train them, along with what are basically podcasts on their private website that also contain training material in both audio and video formats. These combined resources have helped this expanding company train people quicker, cheaper, better, and the associates come away with a better understanding of the material.

Of course the success of something like this would all depend on how it is implemented. If used correctly it could indeed be a powerful tool to help educate students. The hardest part would be training educators on how to best use the technology and developing lessons to be used on the iPods.

Both MIT and Stanford have their own Podcast on iTunes that contain prominent lectures from some of their classes. Other universities have entire recording available for free download on their websites.

If you buy into the idea that this could have a potential pay-off to our educational system, the question becomes is now the right time to invest in this? The idea arose in a discussion over how to fix the states budget problems, and therefore was immediately under attack since it meant making an investment rather than making a cut. The implementation of this idea of course will not yield results for sometime, and the short term impact to the budget will be the cost of implementing the program. There is no doubt that a program such as this would be a hard sell the the general public. How does one justify the cost of giving students a high tech device that little in the public will see the educational value of during such hard economic times?

I have long thought that education has always been a little behind the times. Schools have always been on the back end of adopting technology, and it would be nice to see schools embrace technology for once; not to mention adopting to the way students intake information now days. It truly is time to schools to evolve beyond text books and chalk boards. I would like to see more computers and technology in the classroom (many classrooms only have one computer in them).

I'm not sure if this is the right idea right now but I'm certainly not opposed to it, nor do I think it is a silly idea. I am actually very encouraged by this idea! This shows that the Democrats are willing to think out side the box, are willing to make long term investments rather than the quick fixes proposed by the Republicans, and that they realize it takes more than mandating higher tests scores to fix education. It's important to remember that without long term investment, any budget “fix” will be only short term.

Quick idea, maybe the idea would be received better if iPods were switched to PDAs. Most PDAs can do just about everything an iPod can (short of sycning with iTunes).

As far as the Detroit News Editoral goes, This is all you need to remember from it:

Democrats are either entirely indifferent to the idea that extreme hard times demand extreme belt tightening, or they are bone stupid. We lean toward the latter.
-Snip-
Stop the stupidity. Michigan can't tax or spend its way out of this economic catastrophe.

Ah, yes. Gotta love that liberal media.

The War On Education Vol 2

The war on education wages on. Everybody and their brother knows about Michigan's budget problems by now, and most people realize what is at stake. Schools have kept an keen eye on this issue, while all along assuming the worst. Yes most schools are pretty pessimistic right now, most are looking for ways to stretch this year's budget, and cut next year's. Some schools have already started handing out pink slips, others are talking about cutting back busing routes or eliminating busing altogether. A lot of schools have gone to pay-to-play sports, and the ones that haven't yet are fighting not to have to. Times are tough for schools right now, and all indications are that it's going to get worst before it gets better.

To a certain extent, I get it. Public schools are easy targets. For one thing they are public, they don't operate behind close doors; when public schools have the slightest mishap the whole community knows about it. All you have to do is look at this teacher not wearing his name tag in Clinton to see this principle at work. This was all over the area papers for weeks, with more than half of the articles making the school district out to be a boogie man (that was a large reason I sided with the school over the teacher was the way he handled the situation and dragged the school down in the process). Every one has had a bad teacher, or a teacher they didn't like and it's always those teacher the stick out in people's minds once they are out of school for a few years. And of course, there is the crowd that thinks that any one can be a teacher (oddly enough it is usually that same crowd that thinks that most teacher's aren't any good). Which brings us the the group that views schools as free daycare.

These views stem largely from the fact that most people have no idea what it takes to run a school, have no idea what goes into being a good teacher, and don't realize the potential pay off of giving students a quality education to the general public. Most people have no idea how much it actaully costs to run a school. The truth is that the public and politicians need to be educated about education. Students don't have lobbyist.

Politicians will always talk about making education better, but their idea of making education better is mandating more tests, and if you'er a Republican, cutting school funding, taking money away from public schools and giving it to private schools in the form of a voucher, and creating a nation wide program that your brother Neil will make huge profits from. Sigh

The war on Education

You gotta love it when someone tries to make an argument and they don't think it through all the way. Check out this quote from the Livingston Daily in their article about making all teachers state employees:

Every three years or so, you'd have one big set of contract negotiations between the various unions representing school employees and state education authorities.

One result might be a statewide pay scale that directly links teacher pay to educational outcomes.

If things were settled with one big negotiation, you could bake merit pay for top performers into the system

Moving past the idea of making all teachers directly state employees (they really already are) let's look at the sentence in bold. Making the pay scale directly linked to student grades; ever heard of cooking the books? What is to stop a bad teacher from just giving the bulk of his students good grades regardless of whether or not they earned it? There are some bad teachers out there and there are some immoral teachers out there.

Of course the proponents of this idea would say, that's why we have standardized tests. But anybody that actually thinks about this, can easily find holes in tests being the savior of this idea. First, standardized tests are only given every few years. What is to stop a bad teacher from saying, “It's not my fault they did bad on the test, they got good grades in my class.” Or a bad teacher could say “In order to do well on this test you not only have to be good at the subject I teach, but also other subjects that I don't teach.” So to try an fix these holes we would have to test every year, taking more away more time teachers have to actually teach, and wasting that time on trying to keep teachers “accountable.” The tests would have to be rewritten to be more specific in order to test on only the subjects as they are taught rather than testing how students integrate the knowledge they have (which is a much better measurement of a student than testing on facts). And then comes another problem, Michigan is switching from the MEAP test you take as a junior to the ACT, are you going to ask the ACT people to to bend over backwards to redesign all of their tests to fit this new testing scheme that would have to be implemented? When you jump through all these hoops to make the testing better reflect an individual teacher's performance, then are you really still testing the student?

The article also mentions that by consolidating schools to be state ran it would eliminate the need for each district to have a lawyer. But if they are going to base pay on “teacher performance” you can bet there would be a lot more lawsuits. Even if testing measures were redesigned to better test on only one teacher's effectiveness, there would still be an insane amount of loopholes. Every teacher that thought they weren't getting paid enough would sue the state for unfair wages.

Then there is still a problem of what to do about the classes where they don't give standardized tests. How are they going to judge how a teacher is doing there? Are they going to create a standardized test for band? If they do what are they going to test? Can you write out all of your scales, or how musical each student is? What about an art class, or gym, or shop, or CAD, or any number of other classes offered by different schools?

If you are going to make an argument on how to better schools, make it a valid one. Think things through, don't just come up with a bunch of ideas that aren't possible to implement, or would cost millions to implement. (I though we were trying to save money, and if you don't think this idea would cost millions, then how are you going create all the new tests that would be needed. On top of that, how would you pay to have those tests updated every year, because you can't just create them one year and use them for the rest of time.) I guess my point is stop coming up with these hair brained ideas to “fix” schools that would actually do just the opposite. Spend a little more than two seconds thinking over an idea and what it would actually mean and cost rather than just babbling on about how you think teachers make to much and aren't actually teaching students anything (or as some people think schools are teaching liberal propaganda).

A new incandescent bulb

A while back I heard about California thinking about a bill baning incandescent bulbs, and just recently I heard about a bill like this being tossed around in Australia. When I heard about these bills I thought to myself about how horrible an idea it is. I am all for reducing greenhouse gases, but banning light bulbs? During the day my house is lit by natural daylight, and at night the bulk of the lights in my house have CFL bulbs in them.

CFL are great little energy savers, but they aren't the be all and end all of lighting. For one thing you can't use them everywhere. Some of the lights in this house I wish I could throw a CFL into but they just don't fit, the fixtures were designed for a standard bulb. They don't do well in areas with a lot of moisture (bathrooms), and they really don't have as pleasing light as an incandescent bulb does. Not to mention that a CFL will never have the throw (CFL are a softer, more diffused light) that an incandescent light will have. While they are getting better about this, CFLs still have the potential to give you a headache since they aren't consistently emitting light like an incandescent (most CFL have ballasts on them that step up the electricity to 120 or more Hz so they are less likely to cause headaches). Also CFL can't dim (useful in film making).

I am a film and video guy, so I use a sorts of different kinds of lights in my job. When I first heard of this proposed ban on incandescents I thought that it could have to potential to screw over a lot of low budget and even big budget filmmakers who use normal everyday, 98 cent incandescent light bulbs everyday for lights on set and as extra fill lights (a household light bulb in a chinesee lantern makes a great soft fill light). Also if it wasn't worded carefully it could cut off the supply of bulbs for the big film lights as well, not to mention all the lights in projectors.

So here is the good news, GE has devolved a new high efficiency incandescent lamp. The new bulbs will emerge as about twice as efficient standard incandescents bulbs and ultimately they will be four times as efficient and will make them comparable to CFLs. This is a much better solution that trying to regulate light bulbs. These lights are expected to hit the market by 2010.

By the way, I am no way trying to say don't use CFLs, just that these were silly bills. Bills like these were really only ment to give the impression that they are trying to do something for the environment without really doing anything. Why not try to regulate the way electricity is made instead?

GE's press release about the new bulb:
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/?epi_menuItemID=989a6827590d7dda9cdf6023a0908a0c&epi_menuID=c791260db682611740b28e347a808a0c&epi_baseMenuID=384979e8cc48c441ef0130f5c6908a0c&ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&div=946895406&newsId=20070223005120

What would it mean to Michigan if GM bought Chrysler?

There have been quite a few different articles popping up about the possibility of GM buying Chrysler and my question is what would that do to Michigan's all ready ailing automotive industry? Would the good out weigh the bad?

This question is of course not an easy one to answer. There is no quick fix to either GM or Chrysler's problems. Even if GM were to buy Chrysler and get it out of the red while helping GM itself turn around, these things aren't likely to happen any time soon. For any of the benefits of a marriage such as this there would first have to be some house cleaning, meaning redundant managerial departments would be rolled into one (lay-offs) and most likely plants would be combined to make better use of economies of scale (more lay-offs). Not to mention it would compound GM's growing health care problems. The UAW would have a problem with lay-offs (as would I) that the new super company would have to over come. Then there would be the problems integrating dealers.

It's easy to see how the combining of these two companies could be bad for Michigan, but could it be good? The merger would allow the company to take advantage of greater economies of scale by sharing parts and R&D between more cars. It would allow Chrysler to better integrate it's engineering into it's parent company in ways that Daimler could only dream of (there aren't a whole lot of Mercedes built on Chrysler bodies, but it would be no problem building a Buick on a Chrysler body). The benefits of the the two companies coming together could save them billions and ensure their future better than if they were alone.

Then course you can't bring this subject up without mentioning the possibility of Toyota knocking GM out of the number one automaker spot. This spot isn't something GM wants to give up and combining the two companies would make GM that much harder to knock from it's spot. Not to mention that both Renault-Nissan and Hyundai want an American brand and are interested in a Chrysler buy. GM can't be very happy about the idea that either of these companies getting their hands on Chrysler.

My question still remains though, would this be a good deal for Michigan in the long run? I would have to think that anyway you slice it, if GM were to buy Chrysler it would hurt Michigan in the short term. But are they any ways that Michigan's ecomony comes out a winner in a deal like this? And would it really hurt if Chrysler were sold to Nissian or Hyundai? Right now it is already held by a German company. Also is it really worth all the hoops GM would have to jump through in order to make a deal like this profitable for them? Right now I think Michigan would get the short end of the stick when it comes to a deal like this, but really I have no idea. If all the talk in various media outlets are any indication this is a real possibility.

Here are just a few links to articles on the Subject:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17186447/
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070217/BUSINESS01/702170320/1014
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/feb2007/bw20070220_219247.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/feb2007/db20070218_013874.htm

A quick google search will turn up a lot more

ID badges for Teachers

I'm not to sure how many of you know about a little village called Clinton Michigan, but right now it is being dragged into the spotlight and causing The Daily Telegram to support a teacher while bashing the school board and Superintendent. The issue that is dragging this little school into the limelight is a new safety measure that is being adopted by other schools in this area and has already been adopted in larger districts. The district is requiring all school employees to wear a name tag and that every visitor to the school wears a visitor pass. When the policy was implemented, all of the teachers complied, all but one and this teacher is facing losing his job over it. The problem the teacher has with this policy is that he states that wearing a badge takes away his individuality. The School states that the badge is a way to help first responders identify staff in an emergency situation saving time and hopefully saving lives and as a way to identify people who are not supposed to be in the building. The police chief of the village supports the IDs as does a security firm hired by the school over the summer before the policy was implemented.

When the teacher was first asked to comply with the policy he walked out of class in the middle of the day and has not been back, taking sick days up to this point. At Monday's School Board meeting the teacher made his case to the board, after failing to make it to the superintendent. The School Board stated that they did not want to see an “excellent teacher” leave the district over this matter, but that he had to wear the name badge. The teacher then offered a few comprises; he would personally introduce himself to every student and learn every student's name, in addition to personally introducing himself to every Clinton Police officer and he would take one week unpaid as a deterrent to other staff members also not wearing their badges. After the meeting he offered another compromise to the superintendent where he would sign a liability weaver stating that he would be willing to be shoot by any intruder if he did not have to wear the badge.

This item popped up in both The Daily Telegram and The Tecumseh Herold and my problem with both stories is how one sided they both are. Both articles made the School Board meeting sound as if it were the entire community versus the School board and all but two members of the audience were in support of the teacher. Sorry, but that just wasn't the case. My understanding from someone there in support of the board, is that the teacher had a lot of support in the audience (I guess he is a very well liked teacher by his students) and his supporters were by far the most out spoken members of the audience, but they were not the only members. The articles also fail to mention that the state has required schools to beef up their security measures by requiring schools to do two lock-down drills a year*, along with the fire drills, and tornado drills it is already required to do. Oh and the articles also fail to mention how all of the other staff members of the district have complied with the policy and that many teachers support it. Did I forget to mention that that The Daily Telegram compares the teacher to Henry David Thoreau? Both articles make the school board sound as inflexable tyrants, when really what they are doing is applying this policy to everyone equaly.

To a certain extent I understand the teacher, but I still have to side with the School on this one. The IDs are not just for the safety of the person waring them, but for everyone in the school. Clinton is indeed a small town (that fact was raised as a defense for not wearing the ID), but it has still had its issues. Parents have had to be hauled away from the school by the police for violent behavior. Kids have brought guns to schools (in elementary, middle and high school). Students have beaten up teachers and any number of other things have all happened in this small town's schools. Even if the teacher were to introduce himself to all of the Clinton Police Officers, if there were a major incident the small Clinton Police force would not be able to handle it themselves. If the ID had more than just the persons name, picture, and Clinton Community Schools on it the teacher would have more of a case, but I have many friends that work places where they have to wear an ID badge (including as teachers in other districts) and most of the time that ID has much more info on it than the one Clinton Teachers are required to wear.

Even in a small district like Clinton not all staff members know each other as evident by a security check ran in the districts buildings. This check was one reason the new policy was enacted. A member of the security firm hired by the School walked through each of the buildings, timing how long it took to be told to go to the office to sign in. The member of the firm was able to walk all around the middle school and high school buildings before being asked to sign in at the office (The elementary staff stopped him almost as soon as he walked in the door). In the middle school the security member was able to wander the halls for 13 minutes before being questioned as to why he was in the building.

I don't always like all these new security measures all the time, but wearing an ID badge at work is not something I consider over the top. A lot of those working in the private sector have had to wear IDs for a very long time. Even at a fast food joint people are required to wear name tags. If I knew the guy I would most likely have more sympathy for him, but it is not worth losing your job over having to wear what is really just a name tag.

* There are two levels of lock-down one where every door into the building is locked, every door to classrooms are locked and the windows are blocked and one where in addition to have the lights have to be shut off and students and teachers have to sit in the corners of the rooms silently. Each version of lock-down must be practiced twice a year.

Think before cutting benefits for teachers

The school funding problem has been brewing for awhile now here in good old Michigan. There has been a lot of ideas thrown around as to how to fix this problem and one of those ideas is cutting benefits to the staff. To that I say hold your horses and think about this for a minute.

As if it isn't already hard enough to get good teachers, now there are people out there saying we should give them less (to be fair there were already a lot of people out there saying teachers get to much, but now there seems to be a few more, or at least those people are louder now that the shit is starting to hit the fan). Being a teacher is such a thankless job, and being a good teacher is a lot of hard work that doesn't end when the school bell rings. A good teacher can make more money and probably with less effort working in the private sector. Teachers not only have to have a degree and teaching certificate, they have to have X amount of schooling after they get that certificate to keep it. Then they need more training for the state, and more on top of that for the district. Some of that the school pays for, most of it they don't.

One of the things that has set Michigan schools apart from schools in other states are their benefits to staff. Because Michigan schools have a good union and good benefits because of that, they have enough teachers and are therefore able to keep class sizes smaller. If you look at schools in some other states, they have poor or no unions, and weaker benefits. And those same schools are always in need of teachers because of that. Teachers may hire into schools in those states, but many move away after a few years of teaching to other states like Michigan. I'm not saying that every state that needs teachers has lossy benefits, just that every state that has lossy benefits needs teachers. In some of those states the teacher even has to eat lunch with the kids because there is no lunch room staff.

I've talked a lot about schools on this blog in the past, and that's because I think they are important. But the thing that makes or brakes a school is the people who work there, most importantly the teachers. Without teachers a school is just a building with text books in it. Until we get some sort of Universal Health Insurance, schools need to continue to provide benefits to their teachers, or they won't have any more.

The Politics of 24

Well, first off let me premise this post by saying I fell a little dirty liking a show that Chaney reportedly “loves.”

I started writing a post similar to this after watching the 2nd half of the season opener of 24, but abandoned it after meandering all over the place and not really saying much. Then I came across this article and my thoughts were once again focused on this subject.

24 is really quite an interesting show. Being a film and TV nut when I first heard about a show that would take place in “real time” I was interested and after watching a few episodes I was hooked. It had a fascinating gimmick, lots of twists and turns, and loads of action. It was fun to watch. I never really thought of the show much until the who torture issue bill arose, and the fictional Television show 24 was not only used as a justification of torture, but also as in argument that Americans supported torture by watching the show. WHAT!? Then this season premier came along and within 4 hours of the show's day, middle eastern terrorist blew up a nuclear bomb in California. That's when I realized that what some are saying just might be true: 24 could well be a NeoCon's wet dream.

The show portrays America as constantly under threat from terrorist and that only the Government can protect us from those threats. Jack Bauer, the hero and only character still alive from the first season, uses any means necessary to get the info or the man he wants. In the second season of the show he kills a government witness against a bomber to reestablish the bombers trust, Jack was undercover in the bombers organization in the past, to find out if the intel was true about the bomber's plot to blow up a target in LA. In every season and just about every episode Jack resorts to torture to get his information, and not only does the torture always work (sometimes it takes longer than others), but it is correct 95% or more of the time.

I have to say that I never gave the politics of 24 much thought until the torture issue was raised at the national level. I have always and continue to view the show as purely fictional. It's an action movie made for TV, and to view it as anything else seems silly. But yet I have heard all sorts of people use the show as a justification of torture and the importance of the Federal Government becoming more and more involved in our everyday life (“We don't want something like 24 to happen.”) I'm sorry, but a show like this cannot be used as a justification for anything, like I said it's basically an action movie made for TV. I don't want to defend the politics of the show because I don't agree with what it seems to be saying, but on the other hand if this ever was meant to be some kind of propaganda, it sure isn't subtle about it, and I can't see many people being won over to their cause because of this clearly fictional TV show.

Good for Barack!

In a speech today Barack Obama not only called for universal health care, but he said it should be in place by the end of the next President's 1st term! Six year until universal health care? I hope so!

I still haven't decided who my favorite is yet, but Obama just got some points today in my book!

The Daily Telegram shows it's stripes once again.

In a recent Editorial they yak about how how the Democrats in the US House locked Republicans out of debates, wouldn't allow amendments and yada, yada, yada. They repeat the exact same talking points against these bills as every other Republican shill. And come on, you have to love this last paragraph:

It’s no surprise that Michigan’s newly elected District 7 Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, has voted “No” — as have most Republicans — on the first four of these issues. (He voted “Yes” on the student loan bill.) Until Pelosi’s Democrats pay more than lip service to their pledges of reform and bipartisanship, perhaps the best thing anyone can say is “No.”

They praise Walberg for voting no on every other bill and basically blast him for voting yes on the student loan bill (in an earlier paragraph they blast the bill). Reading this article it really seems that they don't really follow the national news that they are supposedly reporting on and commenting on. If this is the way that a lot of local newspapers are run and if people actually read those newspapers, I guess it isn't any wonder why there are so many red states.

http://lenconnect.com/articles/2007/01/19/news/news06.txt

N.A.I.A.S. and the Auto Industry

Well, the 2007 North American International Auto Show is here and along with it some insight on what the year holds for auto makers. As I said in my last post I wasn't able to go an cover the show during Press Week as I was last year, I was still able to get a press pass for the Industry days. Industry days are days were the press that couldn't make it to Press Week, or just wanted some more time with the cars, and those who work for the Auto Industry are able to get into the show before the public. The only problem is you have to deal with a few of the booths still switching over from Press Week to Public. I was actually there at the same time as The Governor, however we didn't see her anywhere at the show.

GM's booth was rearranged, and pushed back against the wall from last year. It was a nice booth, nicer than last year. I was really hoping to see the Chevy Volt, however it must have been out for a photo shoot or something because it was nowhere to be seen on the show floor. I did get a look at the new Malibu. I have to say I wasn't impressed. It looks a little better than the old one I guess, but nothing exciting. GM does seem to understand that they have to step up their designs as evident by them winning both the car of the year, Saturn Aura, and the truck of the year, the Chevy Silverado. I have to say, sitting in some of their new cars, they have stepped up their interiors on a lot of cars and trucks; one step in the right direction to better compete with Toyota and Nissan.

Ford's booth was set up much like last year's, only not as flashy. Gone are the giant video walls that surrounded the booth on the outside, replaced with two slightly smaller video screens. The Ford emblem embedded in the floor in the center of the booth is gone as well. The cars Ford was showing were I think a little more interesting however this year as opposed to last. The Ford Intercepter and Airstream were much more exciting concepts than last year's Super Chief. Of course one for Fords biggest announcements at the Auto Show was their team up with Microsoft for their Sync. Sync seems like a very interesting idea, and if they are able to make it work as well as advertised may help pull Ford out of it's slump. For those of you that don't know what Sync is, it is a package of voice commands, mp3 input and controls, wireless interfacing with bluetooth phones, and audible text messages. Sync will be available in twelve different Ford, Lincoln, Mercury models by the end of the year starting with the Ford Focus.

Chrysler's booth was almost identical to last year's in layout (well at least the parts that were completely switched from Press Week to Public while I was there). They had a few concepts there, along with the new Dodge Avenger and Dodge Challenger, both very cool, and new models of their minivans. The car that I was most interested in was the Dodge Magnum, a car I am thinking about getting. It has all the room for my video gear, and has better millage than SUVs. (I wish I didn't need a big car, but to lug around all of my video equipment for shoots I need a lot of room.) Across the hall from Chrysler the other half of Daimler-Chrysler, Mercedes booth was busy. The floor was interesting, ice. The ice has something frozen into it to give it treads while other parts of the ice were covered with carpeting. Something new NAIAS this year was a small booth across from Chrysler's, Smart. Smart is a tiny little car, made by Mercedes, due out in the US next year

Toyota and Lexus's booth were interesting. While they are poised to displace GM as the largest auto maker, their floor space at the show still isn't as large as the Big 3. Looking through their booth it is easy to see why some would buy those cars over the Big 3's, they are nice cars and fuel efficient. But it is also easy to see where GM, Ford and Chrysler can catch up in the near future (in many ways they have already started).

The rest of the show was interesting, and some of the booths showed major changes in them, while others retained the lay out of years past. The Scion booth was kinda cool as they had cars stacked on racks on their back wall. Also this year, VW went from occupying space both upstairs and downstairs to only having space upstairs and in that space had few cars.

It it interesting to look at this show and see how it relates to the industry itself. From my friends that did cover the Press Week, most said they saw quite a difference show from last year to this year. The Industry itself flies in reporters from all over to cover this show, and this year less money was spent on flying in press from outside the area. Also they said the press conferences themselves where less flashy and the giveaways to impress the press were not as plentiful this year. Their consensus from Press Week, the auto industry isn't what it once was.

The thing I came away with from the Auto Show is that the industry hasn't given up. It is still fighting and will continue to fight. As the Governor said, Michigan has the largest amount of auto research than anywhere else. Companies like Tesla Motors are coming to Michigan for engineering and are considering Michigan for manufacturing as well. The Big 3 are calling on companies and the Federal Government for research on Batteries (at least one of three main companies tapped to do the research are in Michigan) to power the next generation of Hybrids and Electric Vehicles such as the Chevy Volt.

North American International Auto Show

Well, the Auto show is here again. I am more than a little disappointed that I am not there covering press week this year as I was last. The decline of the auto industry has caused a decline in the need for people like me (video producers) to work for the auto makers in the booths (during press week even the smallest booths there have a crane there for the automaker, and the larger automakers have cranes, steadycams, and three other cameras covering the event to show on the booths huge videos walls at the press conference) and few people are needed to cover the show. Last year the company I was covering the show for (think very big company that is one of the sponsors of the show if not the main sponsor) hired ten people to help them cover the show along with their own internal press team. This year they hired one person outside their own press team. In years past anybody who was anybody that has to do with video in Michigan would be at the Auto show either covering it, or working in one of the booths. Long story short, not so this year.

But enough bitching about about how a big chunk of money from that show won't be coming my way this year; let's look at the few things that will be happening there. GM and Ford's biggest goal this year will be to try to show the world that they are still relevant. And Chrysler will try to show it's German co-owners that they were not a bad investment. Not only that, but the Big Three will also be interested in the Chinese autos that will be on display for the second year in a row at Cobo.

GM this year is trying to show that they too can be green. They have reintroduced an electric concept car that also has a three cylinder flex fuel internal combustion engine in it to recharge the car on long trips. This is of course a great thing, however GM states that a car such as this is still years away from being in production. They announced a plug in version of their Satan Vue hybrid at the LA auto show last year, but once again stated it is a at least a year away from being in production.

Ford's big announcement will be a partnership with Microsoft to make their cars more applying to younger buys by offering MP3 integration, voice commands, text messages, and of course some flash and dash.