Michael Swickard |
Swickard: President’s Day Best and Worst
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Tuesday, February 12, 2019
© 2019 Michael
Swickard, Ph.D. February
is President’s Month. Recently I noticed on Social Media quite a few posts
about current and former United States Presidents. Over two-hundred thirty
years there are only forty-four men in that exclusive club.
One post proclaimed
Barack Obama worst president ever. There was as usual a vigorous battle of emotions.
I believe it takes at least thirty years to get a real historical feel for the
value of a President. The jury is still out for me on Bush 41 to Trump.
My
response to that post: Lyndon Johnson was the worst president ever. There were some
good results during his presidency. However, his legacy is the damage to Social
Security for political purposes, micromanaging the Vietnam War including not
understanding our military technically won the war in 1968.
Additionally,
Johnson pushed a welfare system that incentivized single parents. Over his
political life he was very corrupt. Yes, many U. S. Presidents were corrupt in
one way or many. In my opinion, LBJ was worst. My post on LBJ was divided by
partisans so LBJ either sat on the right hand of God or of Satan.
If you study
U. S. Presidents, you find they are all flawed human beings. Some Presidents control
their flaws better. Question: what is the lasting good and lasting harm of each
of them?
Most
harmful: Polk, Bucannon, Wilson, both Roosevelts, LBJ and Carter. You might
have a different list. I can talk hours why those seven Presidents left our
nation much worse off.
Best Presidents:
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Coolidge, Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan. Each,
despite flaws, left our nation better for their time as president.
All must
grow into the job. Even George Washington had growing pains throughout his
presidency since he had to take each crisis as a new learning activity.
George
Washington previously served as General of the Army. Being President is vastly
different. He learned and left our nation better. The same can be said of
Eisenhower. However, President Grant did not leave a lasting good though he was
very popular in his lifetime.
Take
Abraham Lincoln, an awful President his first year but grew into the Presidency
and left our nation better off. Maybe one of Lincoln’s contemporaries would
have grown into the presidency like Lincoln but we will never know.
Both Calvin
Coolidge and Harry Truman were trust into the Presidency and left the nation
better off. Both did not want the office but took it when the then President
died in office.
We can use
the same logic for Governors and Mayors but again about thirty years or so must
go by before any real historical decisions are appropriate.
At New Mexico
State University in 1970 I drew the ire of then President Roger Corbett while I
was in the Student Senate. At the time I thought him an awful president.
After years
of reflection I believe the top five NMSU President were Hadley, Foster, Kent,
Thomas and yes, Roger Corbett. The academic world of NMSU is ever so much
better for each of them being the President.
I cannot
make a judgement on my fellow Class of 1968 Alamogordo High School graduate
Danny Arvizu, who now leads NMSU. I liked him in high school, but I do not know
if he will lead NMSU in turbulent times to a better place than he finds it.
When government
leaders are elected, and leaders of academic institutions are appointed it will
be decades before we really know the total results of that decision. However, we
can learn much by those who came before, if we want to learn.
Email:
drswickard@comcast.net
Swickard: Not in my backyard
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, November 5, 2017
© 2017 Michael
Swickard, Ph.D. Jet
engines make lots of noise, especially military jets. It seems several
communities in New Mexico are bothered by the thought that jets from Holloman
Air Force Base may fly over their towns and surrounding lands while they are
training for the role of combat pilot.
The Air
Force leadership at Holloman has announced that the jet pilots they are
training need more area to practice what they do before they get into actual combat.
Naturally it goes without saying that when you are in combat is a bad time to
learn some things that should be taught before they get into combat.
The rub is
that many people in these towns don’t want to hear military jets flying over
their homes. The very thought of it annoys some people. They are writing angry
letters and protesting having to hear the noise of jets. They say that the
pilots should fly somewhere else. What they are saying is don’t fly over my
backyard.
When I was
much younger I was working on a barbed wire fence one day about twenty miles
south of Carrizozo on my grandfather’s ranch. It was a warm quiet day and I was
almost falling asleep on my feet while I worked on this fence. Bees were
buzzing and birds were singing. Then it happened.
Four F-4
Phantom jets from Holloman AFB came over me doing about 400 knots at two
hundred feet above the terrain. Instantly I went from being almost asleep on my
feet to throwing the hammer and running over the fence in a panic. Then it was quiet
again.
It is much
worse for those cowpokes on horseback. There can be quite a difficulty for a
rider when a horse is spooked this way. That said, I am not troubled by the military
jets. To me that is the sound of freedom and I normally look up appreciatively.
The
syndrome is called, “Not in my backyard.” Be it jets overhead or highways or
power lines, people will object and demand that these things not be in their
backyard, they should be in someone else’s backyard.
How do we
decide who has a backyard that should be protected from things that annoy and
who does not? In 1965, I lived in Aurora Colorado under the landing and takeoff
pattern of Stapleton Airport. It was often very loud but we got used to it. The
airport moved after we left.
What we
are dealing with is volunteers to our nation’s military who put their lives on
the line for our freedom. They must have a place to train. The rigors are such
that some pilots will not survive the training. And we should worry that the
noise bothers some people?
Every
effort should be taken to not annoy people up to the point that the pilots are
not able to get the very best training preparing them for real combat. At that
point, we should take their training as more important than our convenience.
Swickard: Not in my backyard
Swickard: When the price is wrong
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, October 29, 2017
© 2017 Michael
Swickard, Ph.D. It happens
often that a local business closes. We have enjoyed years of that business in
our community but now it is closed. Rarely do we understand what happened.
There is a
popular show, “The price is right” where contestants must know the correct
price of items. When a local company goes out of business one explainer is that
they didn’t charge enough for their products. Not always. There are other
explainers.
Restaurants
are one type of business I notice when they close because several have closed
even though I was a regular customer. Businesses come and businesses go. It is
a natural happening in our free enterprise model of capitalism.
The
popular notion is that anyone in business for themselves are rich. Nothing
could be further from the truth. The one commonality is most local businesses
are started by risk-takers. They put up the money and their own time to see if we
will vote for their ideas with our wallets.
The first
danger for sustainable businesses is that their prices are too low for the cost
of doing business. So, they can be in business for a while before they run out
of money. If that happens then they go out of business.
The most
important issue is the return on investment for someone in business. There are
ways to change the bottom line such as quality and efficiency. But ultimately
the buyer is the judge and jury of that success. Except for when the government
gets involved.
The
government regulations are a component in the price and bottom line. They
require the business to do things they may not want to do such as pay more for
employees than would allow for a profit. At times.
This is
not good for either the employees or the customers when businesses close. Then
the businesses that are left leave less choice and price pressure to support
customers.
Sometimes
the loss of profit is obscured by inventory only to eventually kill the
business. The patron of the business pays the asked price or they go somewhere
else. The lure of going to a bigger town means that money leaves which does kill
businesses.
The
economic pressures on local businesses include competition, cost of goods and
the changing needs of our population. In the computer business, it used to be a
value-added store where the customer knew little and the store experts were
needed to walk customers through getting a computer up and running.
Then it
all changed and those stores closed. The new online option for purchase makes
it harder to be in local business if you sell some items. The same is true for
local restaurants. But there is one thing that local businesses do that the big
ones do not.
The local business
owners spend their money in the local economy. The nationals ship the money out
of your town quickly. Will losing money out-of-town close local businesses? Of
course. That price is always wrong for your town.
Swickard: When the price is wrong
Swickard: Solving problems with guns
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, October 22, 2017
© 2017 Michael
Swickard, Ph.D. Every year
for decades there have been students bringing guns to school to “fix a problem.”
In the days after the school shooting many people speculate on how the kid
obtained the gun and got it to school along with many more how-it-was-done
questions.
I never
hear the question: why did this kid think using a gun would solve any problems?
Rather, it causes more problems than can be imagined. So where did that student
get the notion that bringing a gun would make things better?
What this
something the child learned in school? Of course not. It is not part of the public
school curriculum. Further, it is not modeled behavior by teachers to shoot
problem students, regardless of how irritating students can be.
Yet, students
are bringing guns to school apparently with the belief that the guns will solve
their problems. If they do not learn that notion in public school, they must
learn it somewhere else. Is it in the home?
Most
parents reject that premise. “I certainly do not teach my children that
shooting someone will solve problems.” But they do. The message is transmitted
repeatedly to their children. Under their supervision kids watch hour after
hour of television and movies where the solution to problems is to shoot
someone.
The
average school age student watches hundreds of “shootings to solve a problem” a
week. Heroes as well as bad people, all larger than life, solve their problems
with guns.
Research strongly
suggests a correlation of behavior in children exposed to violence. Kids in one
research project were observed with fellow students for an hour. Then they
watched violent cartoons for an hour and were observed with students for the
hour afterwards.
In the
second and third hours, the incidence of aggressive behavior increased
dramatically. The research is compelling that watching television influences behavior.
That is why advertisers spend millions on commercials. It influences behavior.
The
responsibility lies with the parents to protect their children from these
influences. The copycat syndrome has been established by the police in some
types of crimes. It is seen on television and then replicated in society.
Television
and movie violence is so pervasive because it is the most easily created form
of drama, “Is someone going to die or not?” I’m not saying kids should be kept
completely away from all television, but it should be screened.
The issue
is not to stop television from showing the use of guns as a solution to a
person's problems, rather, the issue is that parents must stop letting
impressionable kids watch hour after hour of this guns will solve problems
message.
It is like
planting a tree. The best time to plant a tree was ten years ago, the next best
time to plant a tree is now. The best time to screen television programs was ten
years ago. The next best time is now. No, we do not need a law, we need a culture
that understands the influences on children.
Swickard: Solving problems with guns
Swickard: Assuming our way to school change
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, October 15, 2017
© 2017 Michael
Swickard, Ph.D. Let us
look at assumptions. They are the building blocks of change. American public
schools provide an example. Not everyone agrees that they are broken; some just
think they should be improved.
As to
public schools: in the past and now, there are calls for educational change by
political leaders wanting to make political hay and get votes. Some say we need
to innovate while others say we must reform the schools. What is the
difference?
Innovation
assumes things can be better. Reform assumes things are so bad that they must
be changed. Now assumptions do no harm so long as no one acts upon them. Unfortunately,
people are acting. There are many attempts to reform schools when what is
needed is innovation.
Worse yet,
many attempts to reform schools are not tied to research. One of the most
problematic assumptions people make is that educational research is not essential.
The truth is that any school change not research-based will be a disaster.
Want
proof? Every politically driven reform movement in the last fifty years has not
been research-based. Constantly some politician has an idea for changing
schools and everyone jumps on to the fad.
The change
may not make things better or the change will make things worse. It is like
when an airplane is flying along and the pilot finds something isn’t working
quite right. The pilot may fiddle with it to the point the aircraft quits flying
completely.
The
standards and accountability movement is not research-based. Someone thought,
hey, let’s try this. The public schools are busy accounting for themselves
without a clear notion what it means when the accountability numbers vary.
The general
assumption is that the schools did something wrong when the numbers are poor.
However, research assures us that schools can only teach students who want to
learn. No one is attending to this truth.
So, what
is the accountability movement really measuring? The school’s effect is comingled
with out-of-school influences. Do the people in the accountability reform
movement realize this? No, they assume poor scores are automatically the
school’s fault.
A change
should be made in the way we change our schools. Since students ultimately
benefit or are harmed by educational change, those political leaders changing
the schools should have to put something in escrow before making sweeping
changes.
Then, if
they are right, we should reward them well. If they are wrong, they should pay
a penalty. Make them risk their retirement. Then we will see how sold they are
on school uniforms or quarter hour math ladders or whatever new fad.
There
would be a rush to use research. It would then be more dependable than just
driving down the road, running over a turtle, and thinking that Flat Turtle Math
Programs are the answer.
That is
not to say that the public schools are not ripe for innovation. Schools can be
made better or worse. It completely depends upon the research assumptions. And please
ignore the political school change fads.
Swickard: Assuming our way to school change
Swickard: The need for vocational education
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, October 8, 2017
© 2017 Michael
Swickard, Ph.D. Imagine
that a wave of brown smelly sludge starts pouring over the edge of your toilet.
Oh no! That is not the textbook way brown sludge should be handled by the
toilet. When you press the handle the “product” should just disappear out of
sight, mind and smell.
But it is overflowing
and coming down the hallway. There is the immediate necessity to find someone competent
in plumbing. We are not looking for conversations about academics. We need
plumbers, not professors.
I was
thinking about this because many public schools, starting even in kindergarten,
are pushing all of their students to go to college. No exceptions. But someone needs
to be trained and ready to fix the biffy along with other repair professions.
If every
child goes to college there will be a huge problem. Millions of young adults can
look at the human waste coming down your hallway and comment on the Peloponnesian
War of 431 BC which had minor similarities to the crisis you are facing.
When they
are through talking about Greek history you still have a mess unless you find a
plumber. The brown stuff will just keep on keeping on down your hallway.
So many young
people will know right where to put the comma, but nothing vocational. When
trying to fix things you ask: what about using a screwdriver? No, not the
liquid kind. And plumbers are not the political leak finders in Washington,
they are those professionals who make the plumbing work as advertised.
I was
lucky that vocational education was for all students in the 1960s so that I am
mildly competent in most repair situations. Even better, I know when not to
tackle a problem other than tackle it with my wallet and someone who will fix
the problem correctly.
As a
society, we are looking down our academic noses at those people who work with
their hands and come home occasionally smelling like low tide at the swamp. The
only thing we will know in the future is what we know now: everything will
break at the least useful moment.
We should
bring vocational education back and put every public-school student through
some of it so that minor things can be fixed by each of us. The wave of crud
backing up from the toilet will take a real plumber. I hope we still have them
in the future.
It is
wrong to push all students to college. Rather, we should make students aware of
the possibilities without pushing what we think and let them decide what interests
them. I understand colleges are worried by dropping enrollment.
Partly
this is due to the incredible increase in college costs plus a stagnate job
market. They need skills that our world will support financially.
Many young
people do not want to go deeply in debt. Be a plumber first and then use those
dollars to explore other professions. When the brown sludge overflows you will
know what to do other than worry.
Swickard: The need for vocational education
Swickard: Taking money to lose games
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, October 1, 2017
© 2017 Michael
Swickard, Ph.D. “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a
right to do and what is right to do.” Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart
It is certainly
the right of NMSU to engage year after year in this ethical morass of selling
losses. But it is not right for them to do so. The football team plays mostly
unwinnable games a couple times a season for money.
Over the
last forty years NMSU has sold losses in a sport entirely judged by the team’s
win-loss record. I have spent those forty years complaining about this to no
avail.
In the
modern NCAA Football era comes an unethical practice of strong national teams spending
millions of dollars for an easy week while weak teams collect millions providing
a loss. This last week the University of Arkansas paid NMSU $1.35 million to go
there and lose.
Over that
forty years NMSU has won twice and lost more than a hundred times. Many Aggie
Football coaches have been fired because of their win-loss record.
Three
concerns: first, it appears giving two losses a season keeps the Aggies from going
to Bowl Games. NMSU hasn’t gone to a Bowl Game since Eisenhower was the
President in 1960. I see a trend.
Secondly, smaller
teams playing physically larger teams often get players hurt. This is not a strong
team in your conference, these are national teams.
Finally,
it is a thumb in the eye of home fans. Not going to Bowl Games because of
selling losses makes selling season tickets harder.
Partly
personal: I have watched NMSU football for fifty years. My first year was with
legendary coach Warren Woodson in 1967. I have had season tickets most of the
time including this year.
The NMSU Athletic
Department have spoken to me over the years due to my criticism. They say I
don’t understand Higher Education. I always respond I have a Ph.D. in Higher
Education from NMSU. But they don’t listen to me.
Former NFL
Head Coach Bill Parcells wrote, “The only way to change people is to tell them
in the clearest possible terms what they’re doing wrong. And if they don’t want
to listen they don’t belong on the team.” This is true at NMSU where the same
old strategy has failed for so many years.
The way to
change the fortunes of the NMSU Football program is: first, never ever sell a
loss. Secondly, play teams you can beat. Finally, with enough wins go to Bowl
Games. Any Bowl Game The program will pick itself up and success will follow.
As Bill
Parcells said, “Success is never final, but failure can be.” The NMSU Football
Program will be shrouded in failure so long as they continue to sell losses.
Swickard: Taking money to lose games
Swickard: Political disrespect and making positive change
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, September 24, 2017
© 2017 Michael
Swickard, Ph.D. “I think Dr. King, if he were alive today, he wouldn’t
disrespect the flag or the anthem; he would use his words and his voice to send
a message for positive change.” Kimberly Guilfoyle
My
response has been to shun them. For this reason, I am not watching NFL games
this year. Know this: if a high school or college team has players disrespect
our flag and anthem, I will be out of that stadium quickly.
It is the
right of those athletes to make these gestures. And it is my right to not give
them any money or attention. Should there be a law against disrespecting our
country? No, each of us has free speech rights but we cannot exercise those
rights without responsibility for our actions.
There is
only one of me so just one person shunning the NFL will have no effect. Still,
it is my choice to respond. They don’t have to even acknowledge my actions.
I am
curious why they think this will address their perceived injustices and make
changes. It would seem that we as a nation must make positive changes if our
nation is to prosper.
The world
is so much better because of our country and the leaders of our country
including the founders. As I wrote previously in this column they were all
imperfect people. However, we are better off because of them. But, of course,
we can always improve our country.
In the
above quote, there is the thought that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have
used his words, his voice to make a positive change. I like that. We do need
positive change in this society that has fallen into the grasp of hate speech
and fake news.
Dr. King
died in 1968. Unfortunately, his greatest thought seems to be forgotten: “I
have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where
they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their
character.”
These
protests and much of the politics of our society today is about the color of
skin and not the content of character. We do have voices telling us the way to
make our country better.
Morgan
Freeman said, “Dr. Martin Luther King is not a black hero. He is an American
hero.” He also said, “I am going to stop calling you a white man and I’m going
to ask you to stop calling me a black man.”
That is a
direction for change that will make a difference. Let us not divide our country
and the people of our county. Rather we need to come together as a nation. We
must do so one citizen at a time.
Swickard: Political disrespect and making positive change
Swickard: More money attracting festivals
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, September 17, 2017
© 2017 Michael
Swickard, Ph.D. One
morning in my coffee shop, we convened our own Chamber of Commerce. Business
has been slow in our little slice of heaven so we needed to come up with some
ways to induce folks to come and spend dollars.
We really
didn’t want lots of people to move here and clog up the roads and stores.
Rather, we would like people to come, spend money and then go home.
I took out
a piece of paper to jot down ideas. One person said that the way to make money
was to have all sorts of festivals such that out-of-towners came and spread
cash around.
I
mentioned that Roswell had the Aliens Festival. We pondered that moneymaker. When
I mentioned to one of the leading citizens in Roswell that the alien story was
suspect, he said, “But they bring hundred-dollar bills.” Then he smirked.
Many years
ago I wrote a column about that Roswell Smirk. We could have that smirk if we could
just invent a good festival.
First,
there could be Dust Day in March and April. Southern New Mexico is noted for
the dust storms, maybe we could get people to come. Probably not. I have
thought that instead of a Rain Meter, I should invent a Dust Meter. After a
two-day windstorm, it would show 1.3 inches of dust was in the air.
We were
going well and the ideas flowed like coffee. There was Waffle Days on the first
Tuesday of November to coincide with the elections. The agricultural members
offered: Pig Days, Chicken Days, Cow Days, Goat Days… the group paused.
From one
table over a vegetarian offered Tofu Days which was followed by Road-Kill Days.
No interest in either. More practical was Rusty Old Cars Days, Bow Tie Days,
Halitosis Days which brought out Onion Days.
Two months
of every year about fifty percent of the onions consumed in our country come
from Southern New Mexico. That festival could be sponsored by one of the many
mouthwash companies.
Horned
Toad Days were offered along with Siesta Days. I was in favor of that. I have
never been disappointed in a good old afternoon nap. There was Nothing Much
Happening Days but that didn’t get a second.
One of the
coffee drinkers pointed out, “We don’t need days, we need nights for festivals.
During the days, we are all working other than our coffee breaks.”
That
caused the conversation to slow down because one person pointed out that having
something at night was fine as long as they could get home by nine, which is
their bedtime. There was an early to bed, early to rise comment which we all
knew was true.
Let us
reason together as to more festivals in our area to pick up any stray tourist
dollars. Send me via this news outlet your ideas.
Something
like Geezer and Geezerette Days might just be the money ticket. I would fit in.
Consider that the fifty-yard amble could make the evening news.
Swickard: More money attracting festivals
Swickard: That fine barnyard smell
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, September 10, 2017
© 2017 Michael
Swickard, Ph.D. American
agriculture, which a hundred years ago was where many people worked is now just
a very small sliver of the overall workforce. Consequently, many people occasionally
notice the smell of barnyard animals and find the smell objectionable.
Likewise,
many agricultural colleges are shunted off to far corners of universities since
frankly those Ag Colleges have that fine barnyard smell which offends people
who are not from an agricultural background. Yet, everyone likes to eat.
Everyone needs agriculture.
In the
year 1900, about a third of all Americans were living on farms and ranches. Those
people knew that fine barnyard smell and were not put off by it. In fact, if
you are like me who has spent plenty of time on ranches, cow flop smells just
fine.
The
petroleum industry says their smell is the smell of money. Well, the smell on farms
and ranches is organic and is in my humble opinion much better.
You might
ask: what does this have to do with the price of steer manure? You see New
Mexico’s Land-Grant University, New Mexico State University, is fixing to
select a new president.
The very
real danger is that the NMSU Regents might select someone who doesn’t know and
like that fine barnyard smell. Don’t laugh, it has happened several times and
New Mexico State University suffered.
The
selection of University President establishes the identity of the University. Every
institution of higher learning has an identity and for Land-Grant institutions,
that identity is unique for their state.
For more
than a hundred years NMSU was and is the Land-Grant institution in New Mexico. There
are five pillars of a Land-Grant institution: Agriculture, Engineering,
Military Science, Education and Service to New Mexico. No other institution of
higher learning in New Mexico has this mission.
The
problem is that some sophisticates in the head shed have been appalled and
dismayed by the fine barnyard smells that’s just upwind of them. One NMSU
President was overcome with disgust by the smell and complained bitterly. Wrong
president and that person did leave.
The
current NMSU President grew up on that fine barnyard smell and often has had
bits of organic material on his boots. It never has bothered him. This was true
for most of the other NMSU Presidents through the years.
I have a
test to put potential NMSU Presidents through before we should take them
seriously as a replacement for outgoing NMSU President Garrey Carruthers. They
must be able to really talk agriculture before they talk anything else.
If they
can’t tell a steer from heifer I don’t want them anywhere around NMSU. Yes, the
hoity-toity sophisticated crowd would never participate in a cow-chip throwing
contest. So what?
A real
agriculture person, male or female would. It is the identity of NMSU. I pray
that the NMSU Regents and the smarty-pants consultants understand the
difference between NMSU and all of the other institutions of higher learning.
The next
NMSU President had better like that fine barnyard smell.
Swickard: That fine barnyard smell