Is the University of California Afflicted by Morbid Obesity?

University of California fees continue to increase because the university as a quasi-corporate person is suffering from morbid obesity--more and more money is demanded to nourish fat cells that do little more than add weight to an organism struggling to move into the twenty-first century.

In a discussion with some friends I asked a basic question: Students are protesting in California and elsewhere about sharply increasing tuition they have to pay, but professors and teaching assistants have gotten miniscule pay raises if any at all. Where is the money going? Who gets the money?

You don't need to look far. Mark Yudof, the chancellor of UC gets compensation of $828,000. http://encyclopedia.vbxml.net/Mark_Yudof. Would he be able to function for half as much, let's say around the salary level of $400,000, which is what President Obama gets? What about Kenneth M. Jones, Interim Chief Operating Officer UCSF Medical Center getting a raise of $58,625 to $500,723 in the summer of 2009, and Linda P. B. Katehi appointed as Chancellor, UC Davis at annual salary of $400,000, an increase of 27% percent above that of predecessor Larry N. Vanderhoef? www.upte.org/about/press/2009-07-23.pdf How are those exorbitant salaries and pay hikes being financed with other than with student tuition increases?

Could the money be coming from wealthy alumni giving more to the universities?

Not at this time. Donations to non-profits have taken a downturn since the beginning of the current recession.

Who are the "powers-to-be" that decide to give increases to administrators while students are being squeezed to pay more and more in tuition?

They are the members of the Board of Regents. They are generally wealthy members of the business community and other persons of prosperity

How do they justify compensation increases to those who are already more than adequately paid?

The general reasoning among regents is that administrators "need" to be paid more and more so that they don't leave for other jobs.

Who decides and how is it decided what makes a good administrator?
Higher ranking administrators evaluate both lower ranking ones and candidates wishing to become part of the system.

And what do they look for?

The ones on the higher rungs look for those candidates on the lower rungs who make them feel good about what they are n o t doing.

What are they n o t doing?

They are "not-doing" anything of any value that would improve the mission of an educational institution, to be specific, discovery and learning.

What keeps students and the public from doing anything to limit administrative bodies' taking funds that should be used to educate students?

There are several possible answers. The public is not aware how much of the money is going to waste at the top of educational institutions. If a university is compared to a human being, it needs to be fed. Money is the symbol for the food needed to keep it nourished. In a health-conscious human being calories are used to nourish a healthy mobile body in which exercise keeps muscles toned and the mind alert. But when someone takes in food indiscriminately and then does little more than watch TV, the calories are turned into body fat. Education money that goes into the pockets of overpaid administrators only makes for morbid academic obesity.

Why can't people see this?

Administrators tend to keep their distance. They wear suits and ties and hide in offices and conference rooms where they don't mingle with students and faculty.

What does wearing suits have to do with it?

If someone wears a suit, it is assumed that he is of a higher standing, that he/she is important enough that an appointment is needed to talk to him or her. Those who are higher and less accessible feel themselves to be aristocrats who merit more pay simply because they are part of an "upper class."

--I am aware that a lot more needs to be explored in regard to these issues, so I would greatly welcome any questions and commentary.

We Have to Win in Afghanistan: There is no Choice but to Stop the Taliban "Gendercide"

The invasion of Iraq under Bush and Blair was and still is an incredibly serious mistake. By contrast I believe it was right to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan, but it was a disastrous mistake to allow the situation in the country to deteriorate to the point where the Taliban were able to reassume power.

Why is it so important for the U.S. to stay in Afghanistan and win? It is not the threat of the potential loss of an oil or gas pipe line that would be a loss to western economic interests, it is the threat of "Gendercide." A woman forced to wear a burka Taliban style has neither the freedom to be seen, heard, nor to speak to anyone without her owner's permission. She is no longer a human being in the social sense.

Without freedom of movement, a woman is nothing more than a member of the living dead. For Americans to permit the Taliban to make their women into zombies right under the noses of U.S. troops would be to allow the Islamic fundamentalists of Afghanistan to present a model of success for the rest of the underdeveloped world--there is no choice but for the U.S. to win this particular war.

Every Cloud Has a Silver Lining--Even in China.

This post has been moved to my other blog http://thewryjester.blogspot.com for thematic reasons

The Secret Beneath "the Secret"

The message in the bestselling book/movie The Secret is that in thinking about the future it pays to stay positive. This involves not only visualizing a bright future, but also seeing whatever there is in the present in a positive light. An underlying principle is that what is held in one's unconscious will manifest itself in reality at some point.

Basically it involves making the right choice of looking at a glass as either half full or half empty. One observer looking at a glass with 50 percent liquid in it will say "Too bad, I only have half of it left--I miss the time when it was full," the other, who knows "the Secret" will say "Great, I already have half of the glass filled." The one with the stance of the glass being half full will be at an emotional advantage simply because a positive outlook is more energizing, making it easier to improve one's situation.

And yet, an emotional advantage may not necessarily produce positive results. First, in maintaining the glass being half full, one needs to say and ask, "Yes, it's full, but full of what?" There is an assumption that the glass contains pure drinking water. Okay if true, if not, optimism can lead to disaster.

Drinking glasses are containers. So what about the advantage of containers being half full in other contexts. A ship in the ocean is an example of a large floating container. What if the ship has sprung a leak and is now half full of sea water. Should we rejoice because the sinking ship is "only" half full or because it is still half empty?

It is obvious that the universal half-full-glass optimism of "the Secret" needs to be carefully examined. All factors, especially relevant laws of nature need to be taken into account. The secret beneath "the Secret" may be that those who place their blind faith in the universe simply accommodating whatever they wish for and visualize may have been basing their optimism on a metaphorical glass half full of clean, clear water which may not turn out to be so clean and clear when transposed into material reality. So should one simply forget about "The Secret?" My answer: Stay optimistic but keep a careful eye on the glass and its content.

Speculating on Chemical Imbalances as a Cause of Depression

A few days ago a friend of mine asked me my opinion about the connection between clinical depression and chemical imbalances. Here is my very speculative answer:

My understanding of depression is that it always involves a person's mindset as well as chemical configurations within anyone's bio-system.   Any given event, let's say good news about a loved one's recovery from an illness on the one hand, or sudden news about a  great loss in the stock market will set off thoughts and emotions that will change body chemistry.  "Good things happening" place one's physical being into a setting of comfort, and /or excitement, and the world is perceived as a place of joy--the heart beats happily, taste buds and digestion enter a dance of appreciation with the food that is eaten, the mind looks forward to solving problems, and one's muscles are ready for active movement.

"Bad things happening" may at first place one's body into a defensive and alert condition.   Personal rejections may bring feelings of disappointment.   A series of disappointments may cause body and mind to go into a standby mode, which, if intensified, shuts down activity and ends up causing an individual's body and mind to enter into a state of hibernation that feels like nothing less than clinical depression.  Just as the body chemistry of someone in happy circumstances is taken to be "balanced,"  the body chemistry of someone in dire straits will appear to be "imbalanced."

Having established that life's experiences can push an individual into the chemical imbalance of clinical depression, it would seem that the escape from depression could come either as a result from "lucky events" or from therapy that helps change the depressed person's thinking  into happier thoughts that help restore a healthy chemical balance. 

And yet, while it may be obvious that a healthy chemical balance may be supported by "good thinking," there is no guarantee that the right kind of mindset will prevail over a bio system falling into depression. It may be possible that someone slides into a state of depression without any obvious triggering events in his/her personal life, but that a chemical imbalance comes about for unknown reasons. It may happen that an individual reaches a state of clinical depression in which no kind of human interaction can restore a healthy chemical balance. Once a state of bio-energetic lock-down is manifest there can no longer be communication because the sufferer will be unable to get the meaning of what is being said.

When words can no longer reach someone who is deeply depressed, other interventions become more attractive. Fifty, sixty years ago, the simple solution was to subject patients to electroshock treatments, which tended to work because the "treatment" involved was so great a trauma to a patient's nervous system that the patient developed coping mechanisms that would restore chemical balance in order to avoid the torture of electroshocks.  Somehow a very diabolical approach of inducing the fear of extreme pain worked to jar patients out of their depression. 

Keeping in mind the torment the clinically depressed underwent with electroshock therapy, the administration of anti-depressant chemicals is humane  by comparison.  And yet, there may be better ways.  I have been speculating about placing clinically depressed persons on high-speed roller coasters to see if the shock effect of the ride would trigger life affirming survival mechanisms.  I am fully aware of the logistical problems of strapping a group of clinically depressed patients into the seats of a ride like the Viper at Six Flags Magic Mountain. Issues of security and liability might be prohibitive to say the least. But there is no reason to lose all hope: With ever greater progress in the development of virtual reality devices not all is lost.  It is quite conceivable that with advancing technology the clinically depressed can be jarred back into the joy of life through an exhilarating virtual reality roller coaster ride wearing little more than computerized head gear designed for this purpose. 

Judging Tiger Woods

I have read many a comment in different places that condemns Tiger Woods for his escapades with various women. Sure, looking at the results, his behavior was clearly a mistake. But there is a big trap for onlookers: It is the implicit assumption, "If I were the Tiger, I would not be so stupid as to have fooled around with those women because I am on a higher plane morally." It is a claim that you, with your experiences, would have acted differently. It assumes that had you found yourself in the same situation you would have been able to resist the temptations he yielded to.

You cannot justify making this assumption--chances are that given your life and background you would not have gotten Tiger Woods' success and fame, not just because you were not as gifted, but simply because you are you as a result of your own very different personal history and nature. This being so, it would not ever be possible for you to experience the same reality. Why? The content of any reality is determined by the nature of the individual and the situation s/he faces. If either of these two components is different, another person's reality is not the same as yours. This being so, it is wrong to assume a moral superiority allowing you to judge the star who has fallen from grace.

Understanding the Tiger Woods Scandal

Why was Tiger selected as a role model for big corporations to advertise their products?

In the first place it was his fame as a winner in a field that seemed to be closed to minorities. That made him newsworthy in and of itself. The media covered him as a new type of champion. And as any product struggles to get more attention than the rest, being associated with a winner, if not "THE WINNER," makes the product appear as a champion by association.

What qualities make a star more valuable as an endorser of product?

First, the better known a star is to the public the more valuable s/he becomes. The simple reason: A star in the eyes of hundreds of millions is a star with greater candlepower than one with just a few millions. The math is simple: the more people become starry- eyed, the greater the number of viewers who want to buy the products associated with the star.

What about controversy? Doesn't it make the star even more interesting?

Yes, as a news item per se--people at the moment pay more attention to Tiger than before, but his usefulness for sponsorships is lessened. Where before the scandal his pristine reputation in all respects made him appear as a total winner, his endorsement is no longer effective with anyone to whom "moral standards" are important. And with the "flawless" reputation lost, many viewers would longer identify themselves with him.

Was it wise for him to give up golf for the moment?

Undoubtedly. Had he stayed, he would have been hounded every time he appeared in public, resulting in an ever greater hunger for paparazzi and tabloid writers to get material on him. It's much less interesting to keep his story in the headlines while he is not around.

Will his scandal do damage to the golfing industry?

Probably little. People who take up golf because of Tiger have done so already, and it is highly unlikely they will lose interest because of a scandal involving the biggest star in the sport. Sports, whether as a participant or a spectator, are habits, and most habits are not easily broken.

What can we conclude from it all?

Stardom is about money. Prizes for the star's performance, product endorsements and the fame that opens doors are the star's rewards. Publicity surrounding him is food for the tabloids who make money by "exposing the star's flaws." There is money to be made when the star gets brighter and stays brighter, and there is money to be made when his light is darkened by scandal.