Stop the Looting

Last May, in the aftermath of the bombing in Manchester, I wrote an impassioned post asserting that the West in general needed to do more to protect its most precious resource—its children (http://commonsense-mark.blogspot.com/2017/05/our-children.html). 

But closer to home, we need to do more to protect them not only from violence but from the looters and parasites that are draining our educational institutions. 

Once again, Rahm Emanuel failed the children in the Chicago Public School system when his latest chief, Forrest Claypool, was forced to resign in the wake of an ethics scandal.   Claypool evidently repeatedly lied to an internal investigator and was engaged in a “full blown cover up.”

Emanuel supported Claypool to the end, “He can walk out with his head held high,” Emanual chirped.  No he can't.

Former Obama chief of staff David Axelrod likewise rushed to his defense in this tweet,

               “My friend Forrest Claypool, who resigned today as CEO of the Chicago Public Schools,  is one of the finest public servants I have known.  He’s led remarkable turnarounds at the city’s schools (see below) & before that at the CTA & parks.  Proud of him!”

Proud of him???? Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?  If you can’t be transparent, if you can’t tell the truth, if you can’t provide disclosure, you can’t lead a public organization.  One wonders if Mr. Axelrod would gush with such generous praise if the transgressor worked for a corporation and lied to the attorney general or the IRS.

Emanuel’s last pick to run CPS, Barbara Byrd Bennett is serving a 4 ½ year sentence for scheming to collect kickbacks on contracts that she steered to a consulting firm where she had worked.

Meanwhile the kids suffer under a system designed more to keep the patronage army happy than to educate Chicago’s youth.  If you can’t get integrity right at the top, you can only imagine what goes on underneath.

CPS may be the worst, but certainly not the only instance of larceny in education.

The next level doesn’t fare much better.

Northern Illinois University paid outgoing president Doug Baker a $600,000 severance package last summer in the midst of his own ethics entanglement as Baker ignored university policies in hiring outside consultants. 

In 2016, the Board of Trustees of the College of DuPage fired president Robert Breuder, when it discovered a $95 million “slush fund” and “ waste, fraud and abuse” at the community college.  The slush fund was used primarily to fund Breuder’s (and other administrator’s lifestyles) – one article called it “boozing and shooting.”  As with CPS and NIU, Breuder flagrantly violated specific policies.  But evidently, Breuder’s misconduct was only the most recent at Illinois’s second largest public college. 

Finally, there is Chicago State University, which serves primarily African American students paid Thomas Calhoun a $600,000 severance package after only 9 months on the job.  The combination of Illinois’s budget problems and scandal and lack of oversight leaves CSU on the brink of closing.   CSU’S struggles are particularly troublesome.  It serves primarily older (average age 31), black, and female (CSU is 70% female) struggling to get ahead.  It’s sports teams are struggling.  Last year, the women’s basketball team was written up in the New York Times for its losing streak—at times only having 6 players (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/sports/as-chicago-state-struggles-on-court-perception-is-biggest-foe.html).  Chicago State has long been plagued by mismanagement, scandal and poor board oversight.  At one time, the financial management at CSU was so bad that the school failed to get tuition bills out.  A school that should be a premier HBCU analogue in the north is a cesspool of mismanagement and corruption. 

The issues in education are numerous and complex.  In the minority community, they involve issues of poverty, violence and family structure.  Just before Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker passed away, Becker and Posner had a robust debate on the level of resources that should be devoted to education.

But in Illinois, a good starting point would be to simply stop the looting.  At CPS and at some of our public institutions, the lack of oversight and accountability has been egregious, and it has been most egregious at the places that matter most to students from poor backgrounds. 

CPS, NIU, College of DuPage and certainly Chicago State serve students that have limited resources and serve a disproportionate number of minority students, as well as first generation college students.  These places are being run by and for the administrators and not the students.  Further, the scandals with NIU and CPS not only have financial ramifications but are modeling unacceptable behavior.  Emanuel and Axelrod do a double disservice to our young people by praising, supporting and excusing this disgraceful behavior.  Imagine a board of directors that said, “Yes, I know the CEO lied to the auditors, but didn’t he provide wonderful returns to the shareholders?”  It’s simply appalling that both Emanuel and Axelrod would heap praise on Claypool.

The ethical and oversight problems in education in Illinois are so endemic, it’s hard not to despair for these kids.   

Sexcapades

The recent avalanche of sexual misconduct—mostly among the media and political class—has provoked much controversy and commentary over the past several months, along with many imploded careers that will take years of rehabilitation to repair, if it is even possible.  This comes a little more than 25 years after sexual harassment caught the public’s attention when Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his Supreme Court nomination hearings.   While Thomas was approved anyway, the shock waves triggered a major readjustment of social norms and legal approaches (“hostile work environment” became a thing).

Unfortunately, lots of different acts are being tossed together in a single bucket, and I fear an overreaction that threatens to morph into the New American Puritanism.  If what is going on in universities is any indication, we have much to fear.  Just as 9/11 may have caused an overcorrection manifested by the war in Iraq, we need to be aware or the risks and costs of an overcorrection to the sexual misdeeds of the media and political class.

I think it’s helpful, then, to break these things down into separate categories rather than lump them all together, because then it will be easier to discern the acts that should be scorned and punished by society and those that should not.  Social norms may be moving again, but it is important to keep in mind that every time they move to correct a perceived problem, costs are incurred and other problems are created, often unforeseen and unintended ones.

As a (near) libertarian, and someone that thinks that a little romance still has a place in our society, my starting point for sexual behavior is that of most other behaviors—so long as the actors are of majority age and are freely consenting without force or coercion, the things they do in private are nobody else’s business, but that brings me to the first category of misbehavior—the stupid.

The stupid.

No law will protect people against bad judgment, and social media and the internet has raised the cost of it.  It was, in fact, bad judgment that ultimately cleared the path to the election of Barack Obama as president.  In 2004, the divorce records of GOP opponent Jack Ryan were made public, and revealed that he liked to go to sex clubs and tried to talk his wife into engaging in public sex acts.   The publicity led to Ryan’s withdrawal from the race and Obama’s senatorial victory.   Ann Coulter at the time quipped, “It was the first time a politician was undone by a sex scandal that involved wanting to have sex with his own wife.”   Likewise, Congressman Joe Barton resigned after “revenge porn” pictures of him surfaced, although there were no allegations that any of this was nonconsensual.   I wrote a piece following the Ashley Madison website hack, where married people trolling for hookups were exposed.   This is an area in which I believe that we have entered into an area of the New American Puritanism.   In an era where social media, hacking, revenge porn, and surveillance cameras are obsequious, the best bet if you aspire to public life is to stick to sex only with your spouse, preferably missionary position only.

The coercive or threatening.

More reprehensible than the stupid is the coercive or acts that drift into battery or sexual assault.  It is most serious in the workplace where someone has either supervisory authority or otherwise has the power to affect a person’s career trajectory.  The crown prince of this type of sexual misbehavior was Bill Clinton, whose relationship with a young intern led to his impeachment, and there were other, more serious allegations leveled at him.   While Monica Lewinsky had reached the age of consent at the time, she was in the direct line of Clinton’s authority.     This makes any sexual relationship, I believe, presumptively coercive.    The majority of the recent scandals have been of this type-- Harvey Weinstein, John Conyers, Matt Lauer, Head of NPR Michael Oreskes, Roy Price at Amazon.    Al Franken also belongs in this category, although he initially attempted to move himself into the “stupid” category by calling it all a joke.

Over the past 30 years or so our social norms have moved.   While we all agree that the acts of louts such as Weinstein and Conyers are categorically unacceptable, the presumptive position that sexual relationships within lines of authority in the workplace are inherently coercive has, in some respects, imposed costs on our society and have actually been harmful to some women in some respects.

In the 1950’s, 60’s and into the 70’s, it was fairly common for men to marry their secretaries.  Our societal norms have now all but barred those unions.   But one of the trends that has exacerbated income inequality is the trend for people to marry at the same education level.   College grads marry college grads, and so on.  There is an effective barrier in place that prevents noncollege educated women from marrying “up,” and this, I believe, contributes to income inequality. 

The second cost to women comes in the form of denying them the opportunities to be mentored.  The majority of jobs in organizations that are at the seats of power or nearby are still held disproportionately by men.   Much of mentoring takes place outside work or in informal settings.   If men are at risk of attack from accusations, they will be more likely to take a Mike Pence approach (who will not have dinner with any woman other than his wife while alone).  Mentoring, for the most part, is a purely voluntary act.  The mentor often gets nothing out of it directly other than the psychic reward of helping a younger person achieve more in his or her career.    The safest course of action for a male executive is to simply not mentor women and not bother.  I have no hard data to support how pervasive this position is, but I have my suspicions about it.

The third cost is simply depriving people of opportunities to form pair bonds and marry.  We all know many people that initially met and grew fond of each other at work.   How better to get to know someone than work on a project together.  You learn a lot by seeing how someone reacts to stress and adversity and how they relate to other people.  I even know two former bank examiners that had have had a long, apparently happy, healthy marriage and raised very nice children, and that marriage grew out of an encounter at work, and somebody took the initiative, right?  If love and lust can blossom in the sterile hallways of a government regulator, they can take root anywhere.  If the risks and costs to interaction between people of different genders at the office are raised too high, these bonds simply will not occur, and there is a cost to that.

Underage.

The most severe punishment and reprobation must be reserved for those that commit sexual acts with children.   For the most part (although there have been some exceptions), our society does not take kindly to sexual interactions with children.   Most recently, Anthony Weiner was given a prison sentence for sexting with a minor when he knew of her minor status.  Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert sits in jail for paying hush money to a man he allegedly abused during his time as a wrestling coach.  Now, there are allegations against Metropolitan Opera conductor James Levine for abusing teens decades ago.  Yet Roy Moore may still win a senate seat and Robert Menendez still hangs onto his despite allegations of patronizing underage prostitutes. 

In another area of public life--- sports, sexual abuse of underage athletes appears to be more widespread than is commonly believed.   In Illinois, Rick Butler, a nationally recognized volleyball coach has had allegations leveled against him.   Olympic team doctor Larry Nassar abused Gabby Douglas and several other athletes.

We need to be vigilant about protecting our children and the strongest condemnation should be reserved for the perpetrators of acts against them.

The Problems That Remain.

Social Media and Technology

The author W. Somerset Maugham wrote decades ago, “My own belief is that there is hardly anyone whose sexual life, if it were broadcast, would not fill the world at large with surprise and horror.”  Today, social media provides the broadcasting mechanism that can make our secret behaviors go viral in an instant.  The proliferation of phones with cameras and film taking capability, along with surveillance cameras all over the place means that, for better or worse, one’s behavior may be under scrutiny always.   Retrieval of texts and emails is very easy (unless you wisely use Bleachbit. Right, Mrs. Clinton?).

As always, technology cuts both ways.  It can be an aid in establishing evidence.  Yet it has a dark side and can also threaten to be the enforcer of the New American Puritanism.  Hulk Hogan was able to kill Gawker for posting his sex tape, but that is rare.  And in Chicago, a teen committed suicide when school authorities threatened to put him on a sex offender list after he forwarded the audio of a sexual encounter with his girlfriend.  

Another deleterious aspect of technology is that it is depriving young people of learning crucial aspects of social norms and behaviors.  A friend of mine, who is a practicing pediatrician, chirped last summer that teen pregnancies and rates of STD transmission are down.  That is undoubtedly good news, but it is an unintended consequence of something more pernicious.  Young people are interacting and learning sexual behavior via smart phone, and not in person.   There is a subtle, delicate balance that needs to be learned about when a woman is receptive to a man’s advances, and in my generation, it began the first time you tried to hold hands or put your arm around a girl in the movie theater.   Girls and women emit a complex set of cues as to when it’s okay to persist a little and when it is not.   Boys and men need to understand that delicate dance and it is not possible to learn it via text messaging.

Proof and Evidence

Proof and evidence of sexual misconduct will remain a knotty area for a number of reasons, despite the proliferation of technology and social media.   This is especially the case when allegations are years, even decades old, and there is no physical evidence of any sort.   The alleged acts occur outside the light of day and victims are often reluctant to come forward immediately, especially when either there is a relationship that involves a disparity in power and entrustment (i.e. the Catholic Church and recent athletic scandals involving coaches), or alcohol.  

But false allegations are also common.   The case of Chicago Blackhawk Patrick Kane is instructive in that respect.  The media had already crucified him (in part, because of his prior known bad behavior), and even though there was physical evidence, it took months to clear him.   The Obama administration attempted to shift the burden of proof on college campuses by issuing its now infamous memo on the topic and created quite a mess.   It effectively empowered lots of women that had sex they regretted having to get men that spurned them thrown out of school by depriving them of normal due process, and now are facing a raft of lawsuits as a result. 

Human Nature

When the Garrison Keillor’s statement that “A world without sexual harassment would be a world without flirtation” surfaced, I was initially appalled.   But maybe it’s not as outrageous as it appears on the surface.  Many people I know entered into long relationships and marriages after the woman initially rebuffed the man’s advances, and the man had to show a little persistence until she finally gave in and started dating him.  We don’t always make spectacularly great first impressions.  Further, women often LIKE men that show a little persistence and gumption—it is a trait that is useful in many areas of life.   One only has to see the movie The Notebook and Ryan Gosling’s antics engages in to attract the attention of Rachel McAdams to see what I mean.  Most women think that film is a very romantic and touching film, yet Gosling’s same behavior would certainly be classified as “harassment” in many circles.   Laura Kipnis at Northwestern drew scorn and contempt when, at a workshop on sexual harassment asked, “How do you know if an advance is unwanted unless you try?”

There are behaviors that are unacceptable and should never be overlooked, especially in the workplace.  Yet when commentators like Stephen Marche in his recent op-ed “The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido,” condemns our entire gender and implores us to “accept our own monstrosity,” he fails to see that most men do not harass or coerce women sexually, that they treat women as equals, treat them with respect, and even reverence.   It’s this kind of hysterical and egregious overstatement that contributes little to the conversation.  

We absolutely should strive to be better human beings.  Men have an obligation to do a better job modeling behavior and teaching our sons how to respect women and where those sometimes subtle lines need to be drawn.   But if we overcorrect, we risk losing part of what makes us human, and risk turning our workplaces and communities into cold, sterile places, devoid of normal human interactions.   And this is occurring at a time when our technology and lifestyles are also driving us in that direction.

Former U.S. chess champion Bobby Fischer, the eccentric child prodigy said a lot of crazy things later in life.  But his last words on his deathbed were, “Nothing is so healing as the human touch.”

None of this should be taken to dismiss or minimize the behaviors of people like Franken, O’Reilly, or Conyers.   But we should think about Fischer’s final words, take care, and think through the complexities of human interaction carefully when moving the goalposts of social norms.

Why Can't We Be Friends?

Can I Befriend White People?

This op-ed written by Ekow Yankah, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University appeared in the New York Times on Sunday.

It is so wrong on so many levels. 

First, it is reprehensible that the NYT found this poisonous article worthy of publication.   At a time of increased racial tension, what is to be gained by a printing a blatantly racist piece that stokes divisiveness? No publication of any stature would even consider publishing an article by a white person who, for instance, said that they would teach their children not to trust blacks because they might get mugged.   The publication of this piece fuels the tribalism in America that Victor Davis Hanson is warning about and that is corroding our national cohesion.

Second, does something almost all Americans gave up decades ago- he makes blanket judgments about people by skin pigmentation.  Yankah states bluntly, “I will teach them [my children] to be cautious.  I will teach them suspicion.  I will teach them distrust.  Much sooner than I thought I would, I have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.”  It is bad enough that Yankah is teaching his OWN children the sick credo that skin color is a determining factor of relationship formation, but that as an educator at a law school he is presumably is infecting other people’s children with this contagion. 

 Most of us born after, say, 1955 have been educated with the words of Dr. Martin Luther King—that we should judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.  We have correctly decided that It is morally wrong to make such judgements.   And to a large extent, our society has been very successful at promulgating this notion.   To take one measure, there has been a 28% increase in interracial marriages just since 2000.  We have a whole body of law around eliminating racial discrimination.   Most public companies work hard to hire, train, retain and promote minorities and have established programs for doing so.  Are we perfect in all respects?  No.  Roland Fryer at Harvard showed that while the claim that deadly force against blacks is unwarranted, they are more likely to be subject to nondeadly force.   Marianne Bertrand at The University of Chicago did work that showed that job applicants with “black” names are more likely to be rejected than others.   And it is true that a black teen with a hoodie walking through a white neighborhood will likely be subject to a greater level of scrutiny than a white kid.   These are things that still need fixing. 

Yahkah cites calling out of issues of the perceived pathology in the black community (never talked about by Trump), immigrant crime and Islamic terror as evidence that Trump and anyone who voted for him is a bigot.  Yet, he overlooks the hard fact that the South Side of Chicago is a killing zone, MS-13 has infected our country through lax immigration policies and we (and Europe) have suffered numerous deadly terrorist attacks in the name of Islam.  These problems are real and need to be talked and argued about.  And they need to be discussed in blunt and realistic terms.   They are difficult and knotty problems, but isolating yourself (and your children) from whites will not make them magically disappear.

Mr. Yankah blithely overlooks the fact that we have a system of laws that protects African Americans in the workplace, at school, in housing, and many other areas of our society.  Worse, he fails to note that many whites go above and beyond to help African Americans in education and employment.  In my own world, for instance, many whites contribute to Boys Hope Girls Hope, a residential community that helps at-risk kids and many have paid the tuition of African American kids at our local private school--- with wonderful results.   Does Mr. Yankah not want his children to be friends with these wonderful people or his children to be friends with theirs?   One of the business organizations to which I belong has a program that assists and supports minority entrepreneurship, providing assistance with financing, management, contacts, and such.   Does Mr. Yankah not wish to associate with the people who have devoted time to these ventures?   Yet, despite that the vast majority of whites that not only accept blacks as equals, they help the underprivileged in the black community in different ways and ---gasp--- even marry African Americans (forming lifelong intimate bonds), Mr. Yankah states, “My heart is unbearably heavy when I assure you we cannot be friends.”

Many of life’s best lessons on human relationships are learned in the local gymnasium.  The picture above is of my local gym, where on each Sunday morning, men (and sometimes women) of all ages, races and backgrounds play a couple of hours of pickup basketball.  A few weeks ago, as they all came off the floor and into the locker room, they were chatting together, teasing each other, high-fiving each other, and complaining about their wives and their girlfriends.  There is nothing more unifying across racial lines like pickup basketball and complaining about girlfriends and spouses (who are undoubtedly complaining about us).  

And I finish with this anecdote.  My own son works out with and befriended with a young African American that is about his age and who is afflicted with autism.  While he is a big friendly guy, this young man sometimes struggles with appropriate social cues and, as a result, annoyed some of the gym patrons and the gym revoked his membership.  My son, along with some others, lobbied the gym’s management and argued that this young man should be treated like any other person with a disability and should be reinstated.  The gym reconsidered and found ways to accommodate him and happily the young man is now back in his regular routine, working out with his buddies.   These friends of an African American man stepped up immediately to right a wrong and helped their challenged friend (without court intervention, I might add) return to doing one of the things he loves most—working out with his buddies.

If you do not wish to be my friend, that is your loss.  If you do not wish your children to be friends with mine, that is their deep loss.  My children have been taught something very different.  They have been taught compassion, empathy, and acceptance, and they have been taught to ignore skin color.

We can have stark political differences and still be friends.  I am outnumbered by friends that have vastly different political views than I do, and some are of a different race, religion and ethnic background.  We argue, sometimes quite ferociously, for our respective points of view.   Still, I count them among my most trusted and loyal friends.

Whether Trump is a bigot and racist as Yankah claims is a different set of arguments.  But wherever you settle on that, Trump will depart the scene in three or at most seven years.   Our children will have to live together in this great nation long after.  It will be much better if they can be friends.

Veteran's Day

I attended a Veteran’s Day celebration the other night sponsored by Wintrust Bank in Chicago.  The host of the ceremony introduced each of about a dozen veterans and told a little story about each one, what branch they served in, what they did during the conflict and how they re-integrated into civilian life afterwards.   I was transfixed by these tales.   One medic heroically administered to wounded Afghan soldiers during a firefight with the Taliban in Afghanistan after he himself had been wounded.  One African American bravely fought at Guadalcanal despite the fact that he was the first black man in his unit and his white comrades wouldn’t speak to him.  One soldier fought in the Korean war in 40 below zero conditions, got separated from his unit, was presumed to be MIA, and trekked miles in the snow on frozen feet.  From the Pacific Theater in WWII to Iraq and Afghanistan, each story told of fierce determination under some of the most trying conditions imaginable.

I was struck by a number of common themes.   Each person was quoted as having great pride in his or her branch of service.  Each eschewed being referred to as a hero.  Each felt that they were “just doing their job.”   All of them came home to very little, if any fanfare, and within a few weeks, quietly moved on to the next phase of life.  I was most taken by the fact that many of the WWII veterans were still gainfully employed late in life.  One gentleman still works at Northwestern Mutual at age 93.  I was simply in awe of these great men and women, and had an opportunity to shake hands with many of them and thank them for what they did.

This experience underscores the importance of storytelling.  It is fine to hear about important events through film or books, but they do not have the same impact as hearing them first hand or  through a person connected to the people that were actually there.  I noted in my film review of Austerlitz that the young people showed less reverence and solemnity at the concentration camp museum than the older visitors.  As time passes, things become more remote and less real, less tangible.   My own visceral hatred of Communism came from hearing the first hand stories of those that escaped.  Being chased by guards and dogs through the woods at night.  Seeing a teenage friend shot to death in front of you.  Those images and events gain texture and meaning through the telling.  Otherwise they become as remote as mummies in a museum.  We need to find ways and platforms to keep these stories alive as long as possible.  Otherwise, we risk that evil ideologies like Communism, Fascism, or Nazism become less tangible, less real to us, and we become susceptible to their return in some form.

On my way out, I introduced myself to the bank’s chairman, Ed Wehmer.   I said, “Ed, this was a phenomenal event.  I am so humbled by these great people and the things they did.”

He looked at me and said, “What do WE do?  Nothing, really.”

He is right.  Few of us do things that really matter, at least not in the way that these veterans did.

Veteran’s Day became real to me this year.

Jane

Stitched together with recently discovered film of her Gombe encampment and personal interviews with Jane Goodall, Brett Morgen’s documentary, Jane gives us an intimate portrait of one of the 20^th century’s most fascinating women.

With no scientific training or education, the young, single and beautiful Jane Goodall dispatched to Africa in 1957 to observe chimpanzees in the wild, and to live among them- something no human being had ever done before.   Leakey chose her because he was looking for someone with an open mind, a love of animals and unending patience.  He found it all and more in Goodall.  With her mother in tow as support personnel, Goodall began her great adventure to attempt to study these great apes and attempt to identify genetic antecedents to human behavior from our closest primate cousins.

The film clips were fascinating as this pretty young woman marched up and down the Gombe valleys alone, hoping to catch glimpses of these creatures.  Goodall’s incredible fearlessness is striking as she disregarded the poisonous snakes that abounded in the territory.  For months, the chimps simply ran away at the sight of her.  But she persisted, and with patience, over time, the chimpanzees accepted her presence and permitted her to have intimate interactions among them, and participate in grooming, playing, and even allowing her to play with their young.  The possibility that one of these powerful beasts could turn on her at any moment and kill her never seemed to cross her mind. 

Goodall’s undeterred passion gave us incredible insights into both chimpanzees and our own condition.  She famously discovered that chimps not only used tools but were able to make them (stripping leaves off sticks to use to harvest termites), a skill thought only to belong to humans.   She observed and documented their deep emotional life.   Chimpanzees had distinct personalities; they mourned their dead, experienced jealousy, displayed affection.   She also had insights into their darker side-  chimps, like humans, were capable of horrendous acts - making war and killing each other in brutal fashion.

Her personal journey is as interesting as her work.  She began her life’s work by utterly rejecting the roles of motherhood and wife as life goals and very early on developed a love of animals.  Her father apparently was largely absent from her life and Goodall got her determination and spirit from a very encouraging mother, and her mother’s emotional support remained important to her throughout her life.

Later, however, she did fall in love and marry the nature photographer, Hugo van Lawick.   The two had a child together, and the film devotes a substantial portion to the interweaving of her marriage and motherhood with her work on the Gombe encampment.  The arrangement raises interesting issues of marriage and child rearing.  Goodall spoke of the parallels between her own motherhood and the motherhood of her subjects.  

Eventually, Goodall chooses.  She sends her young son back to Great Britain to be schooled as her concerns about a lack of socialization in the jungle began to worry her.  Similarly, when the funding to keep Hugo at Gombe runs out, Hugo is forced to ply his trade on the Serengeti.  Again, she chooses.  The separation becomes too much for the marriage to bear.  Neither is willing to compromise and Jane and Hugo eventually divorce.  In both cases, motherhood and marriage remained subordinated to her primary love---her work.   

Jane Goodall belongs in the pantheon of fearless, passionate women that found their life’s work and threw themselves at it, women like Marie Curie, Amelia Earhart, and Babe Didrikson Zacharias (for a great read on Didrikson, read Wonder Girl by Don Van Natta).  Each of these women have a fascinating story to tell as each rejected societal norms.

Goodall is a captivating figure, mostly because of her sheer fearlessness and defiance.  She defied the conventional role of a woman in the 60’s.  She defied the traditional paths of the scientific establishment.  She defied traditional views of marriage and motherhood.  Because of her unwillingness to be bound by these things, she was able to do something spectacular - redefine and recast our definition of what it means to be human.  

Jane is a wonderful film about a fascinating person.

A Touch of Optimism

This was an interesting week, supplying enough material for a month’s worth of blog posts.   The challenge is to make sense of it all and synthesize things into a single blog post that carries a message.

By George, I think I’ve got it!

The week was bookended by two events—co-lecturing an Entrepreneurial Finance class with Elatia Abate, a dynamic, enthusiastic, and optimistic thinker who is doing great work on the future of work (see her enlightening and inspiring Ted talk at _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBRlUzzYfLc).   I tried to serve as the set-up man, delivering my stark message on the Four Horsemen of the Career Apocalypse (Debt and Demographics/Technology/China/Politics and Regulatory State) that will combine to create a world that will create career upheaval and dislocation in ways that are fundamentally different than the one that my generation had to face.  Elatia’s message is that this set of conditions and risks requires an entirely different mindset to survive, and, indeed, a different way of thinking will create opportunities out of this environment.  She presented the antidote to my darker vision of challenges that younger people face entering the workforce.  While I think our presentation needs to be tweaked a little--it was more the first dress rehearsal of a play where bridges and connections need to be smoothed out a bit.  The underlying message is an important one.   The careers of this generation will be more different than mine than mine was to my grandfather’s, and people will need to be much more entrepreneurial and resilient  than in the past in order to have satisfying and prosperous careers.  

On Friday, I had the opportunity to meet and speak with Austan Goolsbee, Booth School of Business economist and economic advisor to Barack Obama.  We had an engaging conversation, and while I certainly had views that were different than Goolsbee (more than one business executive has referred to Goolsbee as Booth’s “token socialist”), I found him to be very personable, witty and sometimes uproariously funny.   In his remarks, Goolsbee said that there is a deep flaw in the model of the Federal Reserve—that is a reversion to the mean.   The Fed models out a large increase in home prices as portending an increase in consumer spending, and that simply has not occurred.   We will have slow and steady growth, not a reversion to the 2006 days.   Goolsbee asserts that 2006 was NOT normal and that the Fed is way overconfident about reversion to the mean (the 2006 mean).   We will have growth in which exports and innovation lead growth, and will be less reliant on consumer spending and housing.  His brief forecast played it safe and said that the near term future would look more or less like the recent past--- 2 to 2.5% growth.  

But was more interesting to me, and where we have agreement, is his rejection of the position of the "secular stagnationists."  Despite the post-crash struggles, he believes it is a mistake to extrapolate the last eight years into the future.   The United States has a growing population (it would be a mistake to unduly restrict immigration), and the most productive workforce in the world.  We have a deeply ingrained entrepreneurial and innovative culture that reaches beyond Silicon Valley.  More than any other advanced economy, U.S. businesses are more likely to adopt innovative products and methods.  He stated flatly that given these realities, it is impossible to be a pessimist and think like the secular stagnationists.

My week began and ended with personal interaction with two very bright, energetic and exuberant people.   Between my professional work, which often involves working with organizations that did not adapt to change rapidly enough, and the continuous drumbeat of political strife by the MSM, it is easy to overweight the negative.  It is vital be be around people that constantly remind us that change is not straight line, that disruption is normal, and that growth is sometimes painful.  

And that a sense of humor lubricates it all, which both Ms. Abate and Mr. Goolsbee have in spades.

I'm grateful to have had my week bracketed by the opportunity to have time with these two important thought leaders.

ISIS visits NY

Yet another vehicular terror attack was visited upon the West, this time in New York City.

A radical Uzbekitani here on a "Diversity Visa" rented a truck and plowed through pedestrians and cyclists in lower Manhattan, killing 8 and injuring 15 while exclaiming "Allahu Akbar."

The attack provoked the usual empty words from leaders like New York City mayor Bill DeBlasio, "Our spirit will never be moved by an act of violence."  Some see this as inspirational.   I see it as tepid and hackneyed and precisely the opposite of what should be said.  Our spirit SHOULD be moved by an act of violence.  A wanton act of violence DEMANDS that it be moved.  We should be roused to anger and firmness of purpose to do what needs to be done to protect our citizens from this savagery.  

President Donald Trump at least tweeted out his response which called for the stepping up of extreme vetting, to which foreign policy expert Richard Haas responded, "Potus call for extreme vetting irrelevant to radicalization via Internet; worse, his policies could add to likelihood of radicalization."

I take issue with Dr. Haass on two fronts.  First, while his first statement is technically true, we do not know how this terrorist was radicalized (in person or via Internet).  Second, his assertion that Trump's policies could add to the likelihood of radicalization has absolutely no empirical evidence to support it.  This is the same rationalization that led Obama to conclude that the closing of Gitmo was required because it led to increased radicalization.  That thinking ultimately led to the release of unreformed terrorists and the ill-conceived Bowie Bergdahl swap.  As between the views of Dr. Haass (which contemplates no action) and President Trump (which responds with action), I come down on the side of action.  

But the reality is that Islamic terror remains a very, very difficult problem to solve.   Even my old professor, the usual clear eyed Daniel Pipes struggles with it.  He once stated that we need to permit Muslims to immigrate to the U.S. but not Islamists.  That is not a very helpful statement because it leaves unanswered the obvious question, "How do you tell the difference?"  And, to Dr. Haass's point, it does not address the issue of radicalization once they are here.

Unfortunately, the debate on social media seems to be binary; that is, between those that favor severely restricting or banning Muslim immigration, or the European model, which is a nearly free flow of Muslim immigrants, and accepting as London mayor Khan, that terror is now "part and parcel of daily life." 

Neither choice is a good one.   As with North Korea, we don't have good choices available to us at the moment.   A Muslim ban (which Trump has not suggested) is inconsistent with our core values of religious freedom and freedom from religious bigotry.  An open policy leaves us vulnerable to the kind of terror and social problems Muslim immigration has created in Europe.  The undeniable fact is that while we may wish to tolerate Islam, there are parts of Islam that are not yet fully prepared to reciprocate.

During his campaign, Donald Trump promised to put together a commission of experts to address the problem.  That is one campaign promise that he has yet to fulfill.  We need to create realistic and concrete policy choices that help us reduce the risk of these attacks.   And accepting these attacks as "part and parcel" of modern life can't be one of them.

It needs to focus squarely on risk assessment and tolerance and empirical evidence and not brush it away with meaningless labels like Islamophobia.  No one, for instance, would decry a Catholic for having reservations about sending their 10 year old boy away on a woodlands religious retreat staffed with only Catholic priests and no other supervision.   No one would dismiss it by claiming, "Well, only a minority of priests engage in unseemly behavior."   Radical Islamic terrorism needs to be addressed in the same cold, sober light, without using labels such as "lone wolf," "Islamophobia," "Xenophobia" which serve generally only to cut off real factual analysis and risk assessment.