THE OTHER PUBLIC OPTION THAT'S FAILING

Let me state right up front that I am the successful product of the American public education system. Other than a brief stint in elementary Catholic school, I went to elementary, middle, high school, and undergraduate college all at public schools (and all in Massachusetts, which places a particular emphasis on education, plus I have 2 parents who are college professors at a community college.....). The first private university that I went to was the University of Miami for my MBA.

What's sad is that over the last 20 years, the American education system has become a two tiered system, with 1 tier succeeding and the second tier failing. The tier that is succeeding is the private school system. The wealthy can afford to send their children to private schools, from elementary up through high school and then into a private college. This is a minimum $1 million dollar investment over 18 years. This investment usually pays off huge dividends towards a child's successful professional future.

And then there is the second tier, which is the public educational system, which is largely failing the majority of children. Public schools are underfunded, understaffed, overpopulated, potentially dangerous and not giving kids the level of education they need to succeed in the 21st century.

In the 1970's when I was growing up, my parents did not hesitate to send me to a public school. They felt, rightly so, that math was math, English was English, and science was science, so other than the cost ($0 versus thousands of dollars for a private education), what was the difference? And they were largely correct. The decline in the public education system really began 20 years later in the 1990's and has continued to steadily decline ever since.

And although I'm not an expert in private education, as a parent, it seems to me that you're really paying for 2 things in a private education: 1. 2 or more teachers per classroom with a smaller class room size to give students a more personalized educational experience. No one inspires you more than your teachers, and the more teachers in the classroom, the better. And 2. the other cost of private education is largely equipment costs (computers, software) and every student having their own computer, versus one 10 year old computer in a public school classroom that all the students can use (for about 10 minutes each).

Although I'm not a parent, I would want my son or daughter to have their own personal computer in their school throughtout their entire education and to have more than 1 teacher per class and a small class size to facilitate a more productive learning environment. And I also want to make sure my son or daughter felt safe at school. Public schools fail on all these levels, and it's so sad, because it does not have to be this way.

When I was growing up, a high school diploma was the minimum degree you needed to get a blue collar job and a college degree was really necessary to succeed in a white collar job. Now, almost everyone has an undergraduate degree, and to really succeed in your career, you need a master's degree. These realities are creating a stark differences between succeeding and failing in life.

I would think the financial component of your child's early, mid and future education would have to figure into any couples decision of whether or not to have children. But I suspect that if the public educational system was comparable to the private educational system, couples would be encouraged to have children, or even more children, knowing there would be no educational cost and that their child would receive a great education to help them succeed in life.

With over 40 million American adults who are functionally illiterate and growing, the United States should declare a War on Illiteracy and properly fund the American public education system in this country. This is a long term investment in the country that will pay dividends decades from now, but unfortunately is hurting the future of the United States in the 21st century.

UPDATE: Thomas Friedman on how a poor American educational system contributed to the Great Recession: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/opinion/21friedman.html?em

20 YEARS OF PEARL JAM

This past Tuesday I went to see Pearl Jam concert for the very first time. I have seen well in excess of 500 concerts, but until this week, I had never seen Pearl Jam perform live. Pearl Jam was the music of my junior and senior year of college, so this was going to be a bit of a nostalgic trip down college memory lane (which is always a pleasant journey). The other interesting bit of trivia is that this year is Pearl Jam's 20th anniversary as a band. That's right, 20 years of Pearl Jam. And yes, that makes me feel old. The other interest tidbit is that I know all of the first 10 years of Pearl Jam music and none of the last 10 years of their music.

Turns out this is as close a concert as you got to Pearl Jam playing a greatest hits tour. It was a great show. What I like is that a PJ concert is all about the music. There's no video, no cameras, no light and smoke show, just Pearl Jam playing their music and singing their songs. It was a bare bones, stripped down concert experience, but PJ always wanted it to be all about the music and not about "the show".

So while they were playing the songs that I knew, I would sing along, but with the songs that I didn't know, I would sit back (yes, I have to sit down at concerts now) and think about the history of the band. Back in the early 90's Pearl Jam was the biggest band in the world. As I looked at my Ticketmaster purchased ticket, I remember how Pearl Jam fought against Ticketmaster and by now had apparently lost that battle years ago. So much for the power of the fans. Also, as I was seeing the concert in the Gibson Amphitheater (which is a decent sized space), I wondered if they had embraced their rock god status in the early 90's if they would be playing stadium tours now instead of smaller arena venues.

Despite not playing Jeremy, Pearl Jam played all of the hits that I loved from my college years. During the encore, PJ brought out Chris Cornell to duet on Hunger Strike (the rare male rock duet) and Jerry Cantrell (of Alice In Chains) to play guitar on the final song, Pearl Jam's best and signature song - Alive.

The other interesting note from the concert was how drunk lead singer Eddie Vedder became as the evening went on. He went from sober at the beginning to slurring by the end of the show. Apparently he does this at every concert.

Between Chris Cornell of Soundgarden, Jerry Cantrell of Alice in Chains, Blind Melon, Mudhoney, and of course, Kurt Cobain of Nirvana, Pearl Jam is the last band left in the 21st century still playing the Seattle grunge music scene. That signature sound itself was an cultural offshoot of the pop overhang of the late 1980's (coincidentally, the last time the U.S. went through a real estate devaluation). I vividly remember the press at the time pitting Kurt Cobain (the more talented songwriter, lyricist and lead singer) against Eddie Vedder (the more successful, but less talented) of the two. For the press, it was a good story to set up a fake rivalry between Pearl Jam and Nirvana. And on that thought, I wondered what kind of music Kurt Cobain would be making today, were he still alive. And would Foo Fighters would even exist if Nirvana was still a band?

Overall, it was a great concert and a good trip down memory lane. What more can you ask for for $90?

Entertainment Weekly's Review and You Tube posts of the concert:

http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/10/07/chris-cornell-jerry-cantrell-pearl-jam/

For my history with Pearl Jam see my blog post:

FINALLY! A TONIGHT SHOW FOR MY GENERATION

3 STUDIO HEADS OUT

For most of this decade, Hollywood movie studio heads enjoyed a relatively stable tenure (3-5 years or more). A few box office flops here or there were expected, and even tolerated by corporate parents. Not so anymore. Within the last 2 weeks, David Linde & Marc Shmuger at Universal and Dick Cook at Disney have all been shown the door by their respective bosses, Ron Myer and Bob Iger. But who installed the new revolving door at the top of the Hollywood executive suites? Turns out the true culprit, who is never given any credit for the firings, is DVD sales.

Universal has had a dismal year at the box office with such high profile flops such as Funny People, State of Play, Land of the Lost, Public Enemies, Love Happens, and Duplicity. While Disney has had such awful films such as G Force, Race To Witch Mountain, Surrogates, Confessions of a Shopaholic, and Bedtime Stories. With both Universal (15-20 films a year) and Disney (10 films a year), 5 flops in a row at the box office is now almost half your slate.

For the early part of the decade, in most consumers minds, if a movie was a flop at the box office, that doesn't necessarily mean a consumer would not buy it or rent it on DVD. DVD sales would largely compensate for a failed box office release. In fact, there were even consumers who were willing to wait for the DVD release just so they could watch it in their homes versus the "hassle" of going to the movie theater to see it. But DVD sales turned out to be Hollywood Heroin, as the market became oversaturated with product, BluRay is not filling the DVD revenue hole due to a higher price point and equipment upgrades, and the recession, have all put new pressure on the theatrical box office. Have a flop at the box office now, and no one is buying the DVD to cover the revenue shortfall.

It's time for the heads of studios to make more hits at the box office to keep their jobs.

UPDATE: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010123.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Kevin McCormick is out as President of Theatrical Feature Production at Warner Bros.

WOMEN TO SAVE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

Well, here's something I never thought I would write about. If the Democrats can get an African American President elected, the Republicans are going to need to get a woman elected President of the United States to get back in the political game. Crazy? But from my perspective, the only qualified Republican candidates to run at this point are all women.

Candidate #1 - Current Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (who is now running for Governor of Texas against Rick Perry), would be a good Republican candidate. She's been a Senator, so she knows Washington and the Texas governor's office has already propelled a Texas governor to the White House.

Candidate #2 - Call me even crazier, but firebrand conservative Liz Cheney is another viable candidate for the first female President. Liz Cheney unapologetically has taken up her father's mantle on conservatism, national security, and torture. She's literally a chip off the old block.

Candidate #3 - No female Republican Presidential conversation is complete without mentioning Sarah Palin. I think she would make an even worse President than George W. Bush 2, but she's a candidate for Republicans nonetheless. The woman can barely run a state and her own household, so I would never vote for her.

There is no doubt that the midterm elections in 2010 will see Democrats losing seats, but unless there are major upheavals in 2010, we're unlikely to see a repeat of the 1994 Democratic political massacre that occurred that year.

The male Republican Presidential candidates are all terrible choices. Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Charlie Crist, Bobby Jindal, Newt Gingrich, and John Thune are all very weak Republican candidates.

May the best man, or woman, win (only the nomination, not the office).

UPDATE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042903222.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/09/lawless.women.politics/index.html

FYOU BILL CLINTON

Last week, Bill Clinton gave a condescending interview to Anderson Cooper (who else?) where he stated that he had changed his mind and now supported gay marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcAKCy1Med4

With all due respect President Clinton, FYou! This is another case of too little too late and frankly, when you're back to being a private citizen, your "opinion" really has no actual power. Where was this opinion when you were actually President of the United States and had the power to do something about it. Under President Clinton, gay rights took 2 gaint steps back. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has to be the most discriminatory legislation ever passed. Can you imagine if it was the Defense of Interracial Marriage Act that said that states didn't have to recognize other states interracial marriages? And Don't Ask Don't Tell was another disastrous policy, that only eased when the U.S. was fighting 2 wars.

And President Obama is no better. Gay dollars were constantly pandered to in the last Presidential election with a wink and nod that after 8 years of a President requesting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (effectively enshrining discrimination INTO the U.S. Constitution), Obama would be better. Well, 9 months in all we've gotten in same sex partner benefits for federal employees. Pardon me if I don't stand up and cheer. OK, I get it, healthcare and Afghanistan are priorities. Of course they are. But that doesn't mean Obama can't issue an executive order banning DOMA. It's going to be a really a long argument to link healthcare or Afghanistan and gay rights. I understand you don't need headwinds, but the voters who didn't vote for you are certain not pro gay rights either, so what's the difference? It's the same issue with Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

This brings me to my theory on gay rights. I think that gay rights make their biggest strides during Republican administrations. When the American public perceives that government is oppressing a minority, that engenders sympathy votes at the ballot box. Under Bush, we had gay marriage passing in states. During Democratic administrations, gays get lazy and just sit back and say, "Well, we've got a Democratic President, let's sit here and wait for our rights." With Obama, just like Clinton, we're still waiting. And what else have we gotten under Obama, a spirited defense of DOMA from the Obama administration? Not exactly the gay rights advocate presidential candidate who gave a very compelling argument on Logo for gay rights.

Frankly, at this point, Obama does NOT have my vote in 2012. He hasn't earned it.

THOUGHTS TOO SHORT FOR A FULL POST

Here are some things that are too short for a full post in a blog, but I felt like writing about nonetheless:

I LOVE THIS COMMERCIAL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qb0vquRcys The look on the little girls face is just hilarious.

Go to Google Images and type in "Male Model Reading" and there's only 1 image. In the whole of the Googleverse, there's only 1 image of a male model reading!

I like red velvet cake. My favorite cake of all time isn't even cake. I really only like ice cream cake. Not some cake and some ice cream, just a pure cake made entirely of ice cream. Friendly's is the best and Baskin Robbins is close second. Vanilla cake is fine. Chocolate cake is too rich. But recently I tried red velvet cake, and it's really good, but still not as good as ice cream cake.

For the first time in my life, I have a wine cooler. It came with the apartment, so I'm making the best of it and stocking it with Chardonnay. In honor of my new boyfriend, I've named it: "Brandon's Wine Cooler." He sounds happy about the honor, but I'm not sure.

I'll never buy real estate in Palm Springs. Palm Springs is a nice, quiet oasis about 2 1/2 hours outside of Los Angeles, but I'll never buy property there. It's just not my style.

I don't understand the Republican reaction to Obama & Gates shifting the missile defense policy. This is no capitulation to Russia. Russia's done. The country is too big, too poor, too corrupt, has a severely declining birth rate and can barely maintain its territorial integrity. China is the 21st century issue, Russia is long gone. Besides, we need the Russians to maintain a supply line into Afghanistan and, by the way, there is no such thing as missile defense. It doesn't work, hasn't worked and has always been more of a political weapon than true military technology (if it worked, we'd be selling it to our allies). Republicans look like a college senior still worried about the bully that tortured them when they were freshman in high school. Get over it.

I think poetic justice that the Giants handed the Cowboys their own asses in the debut of their new monolith of a stadium. $1.2 billion?!?! That's quite a price tag, but you gotta love the big TV. As a TV researcher, I should mention that the game, because of the rivalry, and largely because of the press surrounding the stadium, on Sunday was the most watched football game on Sunday night ever, with more than 25 million viewers.

Here's another great commercial from the same company: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKdIKP1arF0 "It's a piece of junk. I want the red one." Priceless!

THINGS I AVOID READING....

I don't know what's gotten into me lately, but there have been several major news stories that I have all but ignored. The first is the Jaycee Dugard story. It was big news on the front page of the New York Times, the lead story on all the cable news networks, and of course, a People magazine cover. The Jaycee Dugard story was in the news cycle for over a week. Now that's durability in the age of internet news and a proliferation of multiple 24 hour cable news channels.

The other story that I am completely oblivious to is the Yale student who was murdered. Again, this has been in the news cycle for over a week, and I could not tell you first thing about it. Granted, the link here seems to be that if it bleeds, I don't reads (incorrect verb tense intended for rhythmic readability). With the little time I do have each day to read, I don't want to read stories of the horror other people inflict upon each other.

Another subject that I would read intensely about, but has noticeably declined in my daily reading is politics. Although I do still follow it closely, I don't read as much about politics as I used to. A 2 year presidential election news cycle definitely lead to my political news fatigue.

I find myself watching CNBC from the time I get up at 7AM until I leave my office at 7PM. I find myself reading only business news, corporation news, stories on the economy, stories about the new TV season including any and all marketing, show publicity pieces, talent interviews, promotions, ratings, and as many new technology stories as I can.

Maybe this is just a phase I'm going through with adjusting to my new job or maybe it's a permanent trend. The last permanent reading trend was when I completely stopped reading fiction novels 8 years ago, and now I can only read biographies, or nonfiction. I used to exclusively read fiction - Stephen King, Dean Koonz, John Saul, and now I can't even open any of their books. Why read about something that didn't happen it when there is so much that happened in the real world that I want to know more about. And I do fill my fiction content quotient, that's why I go to the movies.