At times yearning for the things and the situations they experienced in the days of their youth, their notion is that the good old days are behind us. And when it comes to building reliable machinery, well, we simply do not build them “like we used to.”

Automotive Accidents

Of course, in some ways, nothing could be further from the truth. While we have every right to get frustrated when an item fails, it is important to realize just how far we have come.

Such evidence is on clear display when one examines the recent results from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests of car safety. To get a sense of the improvements, the Institute filmed a head-on collision between a 1959 Chevy Bel Air and a 2009 Chevy Malibu.

The collision was an example of a “frontal offset” collision, driver to driver, at a speed of 40 m.p.h. Crash test dummies recorded the carnage that would have been wrought on each driver.

Of course, the 1959 Bel Air lacked seat belts and a neck restraint. In addition, the passenger cabin was unable to withstand the impact, crumpling inward.

The data revealed that a real driver in the Bel Air would have suffered severe injuries in the neck, chest, and both legs.

The Malibu, complete with air bag offered a dramatically different final appearance. In addition, the crash test dummy escaped unscathed.

“It was night and day, the difference in occupant protection,” stated Institute president Adrian Lund. “What this test shows is that automakers don’t build cars like they used to. They build them better.”

Not So Fast

When it comes to safety, it seems that it is a good thing that they do not build them like they used to. But the same agency gives cars much lower marks (pdf) on the cost of repair after they experience a collision.

In fact, when it comes to the 2009 Chevy Malibu, the IIHS ranks the vehicle very poorly when it comes to the assessment of how well bumpers resist damage in everyday fender-benders. Using four different types of collisions, front and rear full-width impacts at 6 mph and front and rear corner impacts at 3 mph, cars are given a rating of acceptable to poor.

For those interested, the Mazda 6, Ford Focus, Scion xB, and Smart Fortwo obtained vehicle ratings of acceptable. The average repair costs for the Mazda 6 were a shade less than $900 after the 4 tests at 3 and 6 mph.

On the flip side, the Malibu’s rear test resulted in almost $3,500 in damage, the highest among the midsize cars evaluated. Such a shocking repair bill came as a result of a 6 mph strike in the rear, the typical speed of a common parking mishap such as backing into another vehicle.

As for the front, avoid the Ford Fusion. In the full front test, the Fusion had $2,529 in damage, topping even that of the Malibu ($2,092).

Other ratings were marginal for the Mitsubishi Galant and Toyota Camry and poor for Chrysler Sebring, Nissan Altima, Pontiac G6, Saturn AURA, Subaru Legacy, Volkswagen Jetta, Volkswagen Passat, and Volvo S40 earn poor ratings (the Volvo S40’s poor rating comes more from the high prices on parts and labor).

So when it comes to this question of nostalgia and the question of the good old days, well, it seems that they were.

And they weren’t.

In opening this classroom to the world, Harvard gives us a taste of the future of higher education. With the proper preparation and a gifted-instructor, the course is proof-positive that high quality education can be delivered online.

In fact, one might honestly ask, what is the advantage of actually being seated in the auditorium where Sandel teaches. The incredible numbers of students eliminate any intimacy and any real possibility of discussion within the “classroom setting,” i.e. stadium-style lecture halls.

That said, the critical components of the twelve-part series are the content and the complex moral questions being posed. Addressing the hot topics of our day (affirmative action, same-sex marriage, patriotism and rights), Sandel offers a constant stream of provocative questions that provide for outstanding discussion opportunities.

As but one example of how to use content to drive instruction, in episode 2, How to Measure Pleasure, Sandel offers video clips from three distinct and different elements of the entertainment world: clips from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the reality show Fear Factor, and The Simpsons.

The course also features opinion polls, pop quizzes, in-depth readings and discussion guides offering two levels of debate, beginner and advanced depending on your current background.

As for one rationale for the online version exceeding the traditional classroom model, online classes now offer literally endless possibilities for rich discussions with viewers from around the world. Not only are such discussions impossible in the auditorium where the class is presented, online discussion forums remove the need for students to gather collectively on a single campus.

The two drawbacks? First, there is that same mentality that features the typical time constraints of all education, materials are being released weekly.

Second, the method for earning those all-important credits that can be collected to earn a college diploma.

But as for the model of what could be, Justice is the real deal!

The person makes it sound like an eternity and well, when we are still in our late teens or early twenties, four or five years is a long time. After all, it represents a full 20 to 25 percent of the time we have been in existence. Actually, since we can’t remember years one to four much at all, the time represents upwards of 35 percent of our life to date.

Of course, the older folks chuckle at our incredibly naive view. This past week it was easy to understand why.

Together Forever?

It was the kind of news that spread like internet virus. Touching and amazing all at the same time.

It seems that Britain’s current longest married couple recently came to the “death do us part” stage of their marriage. On September 1st, at the ripe old age of 101, Frank Milford of Plymouth went to meet his maker.

That meant his wife Anita was now on her own for the first time in 81 years.

Yep, 81 years.

According to the BBC, the couple met at a YMCA dance in Plymouth, Devon, in 1926. Two years later they took their vows.

The closest they likely came to being separated was during World War II. Again, according to the BBC, “during the Blitz they narrowly escaped two bombs, including one which fell on their house.”

The incredibly sweet couple acknowledged their secret – the Milfords’ insisted their marriage was one of “give and take” and a little time for some romance. They were still together in an assisted living center at the time of Frank’ death.

While one might be astonished by the incredible length of time the couple had been together, it seems they fell short of becoming the longest married couple in Britain. Mr. and Mrs. Milford would have had to spend another six months together, until February of 2010, to claim the longest British marriage ever, a mark held by Thomas and Elizabeth Morgan of Caerleon, South Wales, a total of 81 years and 60 days (Guinness World Records).

In sum total they can serve as a much needed-alternative to the stress of papers and tests.

But unfortunately, the college athletic model has succumbed to the same pressure that drives the professional sports world: money. The quest for the almighty dollar can lead to shameful behaviors, greed being what it is, and to situations like the recent one involving the Memphis men’s basketball program.

At the same time, the Memphis situation reveals the perverse world of college athletics, one where the two people most responsible for a problem, the student-athlete and the coach, somehow manage to earn greater sums after the incident, while the people least responsible, the player’s teammates, become victims of the greedy system.

Using an Improper Player

Under the current model, college coaches recruit gifted players, many who would not academically qualify for admission if not for their athletic talents. Even the best schools today adjust their admission standards so as to be able to compete in the financially lucrative world of college athletics.

The recent Memphis situation involved the immensely talented Derek Rose (in what amounts to the biggest sham going, Rose is not actually named as the culprit), a young man who had failed to reach the minimal ACT score for college eligibility during his first three efforts. Given that a college scholarship was on the line and a new professional basketball policy that prevented teams from drafting players directly out of high school, Mr. Rose apparently engaged a surrogate student to take and pass the SAT test.

As but one sign that the coach recruiting Derek Rose might think something was amiss, Rose lived in Chicago. But the passing SAT score was obtained in Detroit, some 283 miles from Rose’s home city.

That did not deter John Calipari from signing the marginal student. Thus, for the second time in Coach John Calipari’s career he took a team to college basketball’s biggest stage, the Final Four, using an ineligible player.

In both cases, the issues were revealed after the fact, and as a result the governing body of college athletics, the NCAA, expunged the team performances from the record books. In the case of Memphis, the team’s 38 wins were forfeited and the Tigers name removed from being a final four participant.

Rich Get Richer

While the school and the other players who were part of the team have seen their performance vacated, Rose and Calipari have simply shrugged their shoulders and moved on to mounds of cash. Rose of course became a first round pick of the NBA after his one tainted season at Memphis. The rookie earned a little more than $5 million in his first season with the Chicago Bulls.

Meanwhile Calipari has managed to secure a brand new position in Lexington where he will coach another legendary basketball program, the Kentucky Wildcats. His salary comes in just under that of Rose, in the four-million dollar a year range.

A few outside Kentucky have asked a rather simple question: was Calipari in a position to know better? One would think the answer was yes, that a prudent person would have had significant doubts about how Rose managed to pass his exam.

But the money involved in high-profile college athletics tends to make some coaches hesitate. In this case, Calipari did more than hesitate, he ignored the obvious.

In essence, it would also seem the NCAA felt likewise. Why else would it eventually rule that Memphis had to vacate its entire season including their Final Four Appearance?

But in yet another head-scratcher, a sign of all that is wrong, the folks who hired Calipari at Kentucky continue to stand by their choice despite the developments at Memphis. They insist that Calipari was not responsible for the issues related to Rose.

Indirectly, they also are conveniently ignoring that Calipari is now the only college coach in history to have two Final Four teams stripped of their accomplishments by the NCAA.

A Model Governed by Money

As with all legal cases that have huge financial ramifications, the ruling is being appealed by Memphis. Pending that appeal, Calipari has indicated he will not discuss the issue.

But he will start coaching at Kentucky irrespective of that appeal. That certainly has the folks at Kentucky hoping that what “happened in Memphis will stay in Memphis.” But as one more sign as to the flaws in the current model, consider the incentives, above and beyond the $4 million base salary, that Kentucky has placed in the Calipari contract:

• Reaching the NCAA Sweet Sixteen ($100,000).
• Reaching the Final Four ($175,000).
• Winning the NCAA title ($375,000).

College sports and money – how the model must change.

I bop from Google Top Stories to the BBC to the Boston Globe, links from each taking me on sometime endless journeys. It is a process that has me much more aware of the big issues facing our country as well as some sense of what is happening around the world.

Like this BBC news flash: Paula Abdul Quits American Idol.

Confused World

Yes, it is a strange, no make it confused world we live in. One where there seems to be no definition as to the term real news.

It was a couple of weeks back, I guess, when I was surfing, this time reviewing Google Trends for story ideas. I was surprised to see a name again and again, one I was unfamiliar with.

Erin Andrews.

The name came up about a dozen times. First Erin Andrews. Then Erin Andrews, ESPN. Then Aaron Andrews (yea, the trends include those people who can’t spell and I guess there are a lot of them).

Then Erin Andrews Peephole Video. Ouch.

Suddenly I knew what was happening. I just had no idea who Erin Andrews was.

But of course that is the beauty of the Internet. Very soon I did know who she was and why she was all over the Google Trends page.

And before I was done, the newshound had spent 30 plus minutes on a worthless tid bit that somehow passed for news in certain sectors.

BBC Latest Headlines, Not Google Trends

Which brings me back to Paula Abdul Quits American Idol: number nine today on the BBC latest headlines.

It was a list that started strong:

Defiant Iran President Takes Oath

Freed American Reporters Return Home to US

But soon turned to:

Zambia Reporter in ‘Porn’ Trial

Ancient Spiders Yield 3D Secrets

And the real biggie:

Paula Abdul Quits American Idol

They of course represent three separate categories: some real news followed by a story or two with the proverbial hook to try to draw a reader (porn trial, spiders) to yes, the ones featured on Google Trends (Ms. Abdul). Got to have the stories that match the hot search terms or you won’t get Google hits.

You have to try and grab those readers that did not know there is an ongoing crisis going on in Iran or that we had some captive reporters that had finally been reunited with their loved ones.

For some, today was a big day.

Yes indeed, a very big day.

It seems that Paula Abdul Quit American Idol.

Here in the northeast we cannot quibble. It has been a phenomenal year for the Rain Gods.

And nationally the death toll seems to be matching serve. Without a doubt, after the recent passings of Michael Jackson, Walter Cronkite and Frank McCourt, it would seem that 2009 is shaping up to be an phenomenal year for the Grim Reaper as well.

Pulitzer Prize Winning Author and Teacher

While the deaths of Jackson and Cronkite have dominated the news cycles, the passing of McCourt surely ranks as another noteworthy loss. The author of Angela’s Ashes earned literary stardom late in life, receiving the Pulitzer Prize for his heartfelt memoir of his Irish-Catholic upbringing.

The author was also a teacher who plied his trade in New York. McCourt later revealed some great tales regarding that time in his life in yet another strong work, Teacher Man.

One of the most referred to stories in the book features the true brilliance that embodies McCourt and the best of the teaching profession: the ability to make a relevant lesson plan. In this instance, McCourt returns to his students some of the excuse notices that he has received, the very notes they forged in an effort to pull the wool over the old man’s eyes.

Understanding that following up on such notes would require near 24-hour-a-day vigilance, he instead collects the notes before one day he has an epiphany. Though forged, the notes represented a piece of creative writing from his charges, a treasure trove of fiction and fantasy that could serve as a catalyst to some great writing.

Teacher Extraordinaire

One day, McCourt typed out roughly a dozen of the notes he had received and distributed them to his senior classes. After the students read them silently, McCourt informed them they were about to become the first class to “study the art of the excuse note.”

He tells them one day they may well need to construct excuse notes for their own children. McCourt instructs them:

“Imagine you have a 15-year-old who needs an excuse for falling behind in English. Let it rip.”

The results were so astonishing, a “rhapsody of excuses” so brilliant, so creative, and so exciting that even the students liked what they were doing. They wanted more. McCourt was able to deliver once again.

He asked them to write excuse notes of mythical proportions: ‘An Excuse Note from Adam to God’ or ‘An Excuse Note from Eve to God.’ Not only did students come to class the next day with their homework done, they had taken the lead, one bringing in Lucifer and another young lady who simply claimed she was tired of God sticking his nose into other people’s business.

Those notes promptly created heated discussions of guilt and sinfulness and that perhaps God could “have been more understanding of the plight of the first man and woman.” So enthralled were the students that McCourt kept going, throwing other names up on the blackboard, and asking the students to write a good excuse note for some historical figures: Eva Braun, Judas, Attila the Hun, Lee Harvey Oswald and Al Capone.

Not too surprisingly, at that point one student wanted to know if McCourt could put the names of certain teachers on the board.

If You Are Thinking of Teaching

The story reveals a special trait that great teachers embody: a full understanding that to get students interested, one first has to first reach them where they are at.

If he could, he had the chance to do great things, to then take them someplace they would never have gone on their own. Ultimately, McCourt doesn’t just get these kids to review the notes they forged (oh my, what lessons were never discussed), he takes them on the creative journey of a lifetime.

For those considering teaching as a profession, Teacher Man is a must read. The author certainly was someone to emulate.

And with McCourt’s passing, one can’t help but wonder how his charges might handle this news, what they might pen for a note these days. No doubt, many would seek to chastise the Grim Reaper for taking their ‘teacher man’ so soon.

While the language may be a bit challenging, it is interesting to see a very different focus and approach towards others. Composed by the French Jesuits in 1595 the rules speak to the need for a focus on others above oneself and of giving to others so as to create a more common good.

It was an approach best described by “small sacrifices that we should all be willing to make for the good of all and the sake of living together.”

As for why these rules demand a review, we turn back to Foundations magazine, and to the mention of a rather unknown name to most Americans, Parson Weems. While the name might not be on every one’s tongue, Weems is the man who gave us perhaps the most famous George Washington story, the one involving a felled cherry tree and an honest young man with a hatchet.

While the veracity of that story is now questioned, it is another quote that Weems offers that is one to note. It is a thought that we wish every politician today would begin to consider more carefully:

“No wonder every body honoured him who honoured every body.’”

The civility list is lengthy but here are ten we wish our current elected officials had been asked to copy in longhand when they were teenagers – if they had, perhaps we would find ourselves being led by a government that works.

The Rules:

1. Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those that are Present (Rule 1 Translation: Be respectful of others, please, especially in public).

2. Do not laugh too loud or too much at any Public Spectacle (Rule 24 Translation: These decisions are not about you, it is about the people you represent).

3. Let your Discourse with Men of Business be Short and Comprehensive (Rule 35 Translation: Cut to the chase!).

4. In visiting the Sick, do not Presently play the Physician if you be not Knowing therein (Rule 38 Translation: Defer to knowledgeable experts on major issues and drop the personal or party ideology).

5. Being to advise or reprehend any one, consider whether it ought to be in public or in Private; presently, or at Some other time in what terms to do it & in reproving Show no Sign of Cholar but do it with all Sweetness and Mildness (Rule 45 Translation: Whenever giving advice or criticism, carefully consider where to deliver those words, in public or behind closed doors – when delivering, do so delicately).

6. Mock not nor Jest at any thing of Importance break [n]o Jest that are Sharp Biting and if you Deliver any thing witty and Pleasant abstain from Laughing thereat yourself (Rule 47 Translation: Cut the sarcastic comments about the other party).

7. Wherein you reprove Another be unblameable yourself; for example is more prevalent than Precepts. (Rule 48 Translation: Let he is without sin cast the first stone).

8. Let your Conversation be without Malice or Envy, for ‘is a Sign of a Tractable and Commendable Nature: And in all Causes of Passion admit Reason to Govern (Rule 58 Translation: It is about what is best for the country, not what is best for your party or positioning oneself for the next election).

9. Be not apt to relate News if you know not the truth thereof. In Discoursing of things you Have heard Name not your Author always A Secret Discover not (Rule 70 Translation: Do not suggest the Cambridge police acted stupidly until you first have all the facts).

And perhaps the one above all others.

10. Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience (Rule 110 Translation: There is a bigger picture, a higher calling and a reason why one is serving in their current capacity).

Conflict of Interest

According to Wikipedia, the term has the following meaning or connotation:

A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization (such as a policeman, lawyer, insurance adjuster, politician, engineer, executive, director of a corporation, medical research scientist, physician, writer, editor, or any other entrusted individual or organization) has an interest that might compromise their actions. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety.

For students considering working in the public sector, a thorough understanding of the term ‘conflict of interest’ is essential. And a great example was on display in recent days involving Emerson College in downtown Boston.

The Basic Issue

The school recently agreed to pay a settlement totaling $780,000 to both current and former students for steering those individuals towards a specific preferred lender. Though the maximum sum per student is limited to $833, about four thousand students will receive some money because of actions taken by the school.

At issue was the school’s practice of listing preferred lenders for students. In essence the school steered students towards a group of lenders, insinuating that the companies listed were providing students the best loan options.

The three entities were Education Finance Partners Inc., Citizens Bank and JP Morgan Chase & Co. During the period of time the school steered students towards these companies, they were not the least expensive lenders.

Employee Transgressions

So, one might ask, why did Emerson steer students to these companies. The answer may well have been the fact that each firm provided gifts to the people who worked in the Emerson financial aid office.

It seems that both Citizens Bank and Chase handed out free vacations, meals, and event tickets to folks who worked in the aid office. In addition, there apparently was a $4,500 kickback from Education Finance Partners Inc.

In what has to be a real sore spot for those thinking that colleges would conduct themselves with higher ethical standards, when students filled out the online Stafford Loan application they were given but two choices, Chase or Citizen’s. If students submitted paper applications that sought a loan from a non-preferred lender, the school reportedly “sent back letters discouraging them from using those lenders.”

In fact, the $780K figure was an agreed upon settlement to eliminate possible exposure to legal charges.

Lessons Learned

The school itself has not admitted to any wrongdoing (check that Wikipedia definition) though Daniel Pinch, the former director of Emerson’s financial aid office, was fired in 2007 for accepting gifts.

Sadly, Emerson is the 28th US school to offer a settlement to students. Unfortunately, employees at far too many schools apparently do not understand the meaning of the term, conflict of interest. Otherwise the practice would not have been so widespread.

But in an effort to further clear up potential such issues in the future, Emerson will no longer designate any institution as a preferred lender.

Ultimately, in prior articles, we have talked about the importance of being able to learn from the mistakes of others so as not to make them ourselves. Emerson’s situation is specifically one that offers a great lesson for everyone.

For Republicans, a return path to prominence is generally equated to a return to the principles of one of America’s most popular presidents, Ronald Reagan. It is equally a path away from the recent Bush years where budget deficits began to grow significantly.

But those who espouse a return to conservative principles that were the hallmark of the Reagan era have to be extremely troubled by a new paper from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

The findings: trickle-down economics simply does not work as theorized.

The Premise

The theory of monetary policy that became known as trickle down economics focused on tax cuts for the upper-income classes. Conceptually, reducing taxes for the wealthy meant more funds for that segment of society.

The wealthy would theoretically spend their additional income. That spending would increase general economic activity, that activity would generate jobs and those jobs would result in better paychecks for the less wealthy.

The process was dubbed trickle down economics because the theory involved wealth flowing from the wealthy on down to those without the same means. Instead, the new paper indicates that in both financial categories, in total wealth and net income, the wealthiest gained at the expense of the less fortunate.

Tax Rate Changes

In reporting the findings, the Wall Street Journal noted the incredible change in the top marginal tax rate since Reagan took office in 1980. At that time, the top tax rate stood at 70%.

By 1989, the rate had been reduced to 28%. Today, the top marginal rate sits at 35%.

Those numbers not only pale in comparison to that at the time Reagan took over, it must be noted that the top marginal rate stood at 94% in 1945.

Concept without Merit?

It must be noted that the paper did not argue that trickle-down economics was without merit. But the Journal quoted one of the paper’s authors, Christopher Jencks, as follows:

“It certainly didn’t deliver as much as many said” Jencks states. And as for any positive effects, Jencks offered, “the effects are really small.”

In today’s economic climate, one that sees enormous state and federal budget deficits, tax rates have to be part of the conversation. In fact, given the negligible positive impact of trickle down economics, it is easy to see why some are calling on increased taxes for upper income wage earners as part of the method for funding national healthcare.

Today, we just became aware that the consumption of one or two alcoholic beverages (not limited to just red wine) a day may reduce an elderly person’s risk of developing dementia by 37 percent!

But before you begin thinking its time to up your consumption habits, that new study, presented at the International Conference on Alzheimer’s Disease in Vienna, also clearly indicates moderation is the critical adjective to apply.

Study Results

On the positive side, the results revealed that the elderly, defined by those who were aged 75 years and older, were able to reap similar benefits from alcohol as those much younger. As has been noted in other studies, alcohol has a demonstrated range of benefits including boosting good cholesterol, preventing blood platelets from clotting and prompting the production of chemicals that help memory.

The study verifies that moderate consumers of alcohol may receive some benefit and therefore do not need to concern themselves with cutting back as they reach the latter part of the golden years. Simply stated, having a drink or two a day is essentially OK.

But before you encourage Gramps to pour himself a stiff cocktail it is important to recognize two other key findings of the study. First, those already showing signs of memory loss, defined as having mild cognitive impairments, were found to accelerate that memory loss if they consumed alcohol regularly. And not too surprisingly, the more they consumed, the worse the memory symptoms were.

Second, once a person slides beyond moderation, the results really change. Those deemed heavy drinkers (consumers of more than 14 drinks per week) were nearly twice as likely to develop dementia, researchers said.

Ultimately, the positive designation of one or two drinks per day actually translates to one being the limit for women and two the upper threshold for males.

Simple Message

The message appears simple regarding alcohol. Rather than alcohol being one of our worst drugs as some would insist, used in moderation it might just be beneficial to people, helping us live longer, healthier lives.

But the key, my friends, is moderation.