http://www.flickr.com/photos/schluesselbein/ / CC BY 2.0

Thomas L. Friedman, op-ed columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote this article. I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing, but I will share with you the bottom line:

” We’re not going back to the good old days without fixing our schools as well as our banks.”

Our economy didn’t break on it’s own, people broke it! It won’t fix itself either. We need educated, innovative and motivated individuals. We need to give young people the tools to become educated, innovative and motivated. There is no better place to empower students like school.

Think about it! If you integrate inspiration, challenges and motivation in school, you won’t have to pay for extra-curricular programs or community centers. There is virtually no additional cost to providing kids with the “right” education. The kind of education that empowers young people to go out and create jobs, rather than sit around waiting for the economy to get better and hand them a job.

Wouldn’t it be lovely if we could arm the next generation of politicians with the problem-solving skills to break the cycle of seemingly perpetual problems with health care, education, war and economics? The thought of experiencing a monumental shift in politics as a result of true education reform is a sweet one.

Where do I sign up?

]]> http://chasingeducation.com/2009/10/if-you-fix-it/feed/ 0 http://chasingeducation.com/2009/10/leave-obama-in-peace/ http://chasingeducation.com/2009/10/leave-obama-in-peace/#comments Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:31:46 +0000 elle http://mindtransfer.net/chasingeducation/?p=152

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aheram/ / CC BY 2.0

President Obama’s recent Nobel Peace Prize came as a shock.

This has received way too much attention from the media people. Get over it!

My internal dialogue may appear ignorant–and crazy!– to the untrained eye, but please allow me to take you on a trip back in history!

While many of the world’s most scholarly books including encyclopedias and well-known dictionaries claim that the Nobel Peace Prize is the most prestigious peace prize in the world, it’s clear the times have changed. Mr. Nobel’s original intent was that “the prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses” (nobelprize.org).

In 1917, during the first World War, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Committee of the Red Cross. ” During the First World War, the ICRC undertook the tremendous task of trying to protect the rights of the many prisoners of war on all sides, including their right to establish contacts with their families” (nobelprize.org). A noble cause indeed! I would say they were more than deserving of such a “prestigious” award.

In 1919 U.S. President Thomas Woodrow Wilson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his roll in establishing the League of Nations. “The League’s goals included upholding the new found Rights of Man such as right of non whites, rights of women, rights of soldiers, disarmament, preventing war through collective security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation, diplomacy and improving global quality of life” (Wikpedia). A well deserved Nobel Peace Prize, if I may say so myself.

Now let’s fast forward…

“In 1994, the Peace Prize was awarded to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres for the Oslo Agreement, which brought about a mutual recognition and a framework for peace between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel. The three politicians had accomplished much, but they were still far from establishing a final peace between Israelis and Palestinians” (nobelprize.org). Wait a minute…they gave him the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize for thinking about bringing peace?

In 2006 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank for their efforts to create economic and social development from below. I am fairly certain that, while Mr. Yunus and Mr. Bank were lovely people, they were not the first pair to attempt to break developing nations out of poverty. After all, there is still lots of poverty plaguing developing nations.

I’ve drawn some conclusions about the reasoning behind  the 1994, 2006 and 2009 Nobel Peace Prizes, including a few other prizes that were awarded in between. At some point the prestigiousness of the award was tainted. The prize began to be awarded based on “good intentions” and “great potential,” rather than major accomplishments. Why would they do that? Aren’t people accomplishing anything anymore? Of course they are! The Nobel Peace Prize is being awarded for potential. It appears that it is supposed to serve as motivation to fulfill that potential. Well now that I put it that way, Mr. Obama fits right in! It has become a prize for those who are both popular and liberal minded, because they have the potential to make change happen. Can we really manipulate politics with this no-longer-prestigious award? I think not! But best of luck trying.

Other Interesting Facts About the Nobel Prizes From nobelprize.org

• In 1896, Alfred Nobel specified in his will that a certain amount of his wealth were to go to establishing the Nobel Prizes
• Nobel left no explanation as to why the prize for peace was to be awarded by a Norwegian committee while the other four prizes were to be handled by Swedish committees.
• The first Nobel Prizes were awarded in 1901
• Other U.S. Presidents who won the Nobel Peace Prize: Theodore Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter Jr., Thomas Woodrow Wilson

To read more on the history of the Nobel Prize check out nobelprize.org

Capitalism: A Love Story

Spoiler Alert: this love story does not end happily-ever-after.

While Mr. Moore’s humor makes the movie uproariously entertaining, I found myself feeling sad and desperate during this film. It all boils down to one simple phrase. The problem is profit. Eric has been saying this to me for quite some time now; I only hope that Moore’s audience will also interpret the moral of the story as such.

Profit is why our Capitalistic society, isn’t actually Capitalistic. Excuse me if I’m starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but when you get a glimpse of the corruption that is government (not just in the U.S.), the wheels should start turning. If your wheels don’t start turning, you should have them checked out.

I am compelled to clarify the difference between profit and an exchange. I don’t want anyone thinking I’m a crazy breed of communist…I’m trying to establish myself as a source for information! When you go to work, you get paid. You are being paid in exchange for your work.  According to Dictionary.com, profit is  “the monetary surplus left to a producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of raw materials.”  My question, and possibly the solution to many of the world’s problems, is this: why do we need so much money left over once employees, rent, and cost of raw materials are paid? I understand the value in having money set aside for expansion, emergencies and even reasonable investments. However, if this obsession with profit didn’t exist, our economy wouldn’t be melting. What good does it do banks to give  loans to people who can’t pay them back? We know now that not only does it not do any good, but can cause entire economies to collapse. Why didn’t they think of that before they started “giving away loans?” The problem is profit.

Back to my theory, not a conspiracy! Capitalism, “typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor” (wikipedia). I know…Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source, but it’s working in supporting my point.

Let’s start with “in which the means of production are privately controlled.” It appears that our government has blurred this line. Actually, they’ve completely eliminated this line. We have corporation owners in politics and politicians in corporation owning. These people are looking out for their own interests, just like everyone else. Aww how can we blame them? Reality is that when I look out for my own interests I purchase a new shirt instead of donating to charity. Mr. Corporation-Owning-Politician-Man, however, is capable of destroying the lives of the general public (think economic collapse or private insurance companies), because he was looking out for his bottom line a little too much. Don’t these people have any common sense, self-respect, or maybe just a friend with morals that they could run this stuff by?

Michael Moore proposes a call to action at the end of his movie. Sitting here ranting about how profit is the problem won’t solve anything. Unfortunately, I don’t quite have the complete solution.  Education might help. What if people knew and believed that in a democracy, the people are supposed to have the power? What if the people were motivated and educated enough to take the power back?

I know I’ve simplified this. I have books to read and news publications to study, before I can understand the true severity of the issues at hand. But I know this is important and I know that my generation is about to inherit this corruption. Now I just have to figure out what we’re going to do about it.