The Role of College Educators Is To Teach Students How To Think

"There are always good arguments on both sides of any real issue."  
—Bertrand Russell

Here is the 1915 inaugural statement of principles by the American Association of University Professors (A.A.U.P.) on page 405 of Norman Finkelstein's I'll Burn That Bride When I Get To It!

The university teacher, in giving instruction upon controversial matters, while he is under no obligation to hide his own opinion, under a mountain of equivocal verbiage, should, if he is fit for the position, be a person of a fair and judicial mind; he should, in dealing with such subjects, set forth, justly without suppression, or innuendo, the diverget opinions of other investigators; he should cause his students to become familiar with the best published expressions of the great historic types of doctrine upon the questions at issue; and he should above all, remember that his business is not to provide his students with ready-made conclusions, but to train them to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials, which they need, if they are to think intelligently.

The teacher ought to be especially on his guard against taking unfair advantage of the students immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teachers own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to relate to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge in ripeness of judgment, to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own. This is not the least service which a college or university may render those under its instruction, to habituate them to looking not only patiently but methodically on both sides, before adopting any conclusion upon controverted issues.

To which Finkelstein adds: "A lectern is not a soapbox, a classroom is not a political rally, a professor should not serve as a conveyor belt for a party line. His responsibility is to stimulate, not dictate."

Who Will Berry Whom?

When Nikita Khrushchev made his 

provocative pronouncement,

"We will bury you!"...

Soviet Premiere Nikita Khrushchev.

President Eisenhower missed

a golden opportunity to offer this witty reply:

"WE WILL BERRY YOU!!"

Legendary photographer Gary Firstenberg
strums Chuck Berry's guitar.

I saw Chuck Berry once when I was in college.
He was traveling with a pack of 1950s rock 'n rollers, doing the

rock 'n roll revival thing. This memory brought to mind a time 

I was at the Indianapolis Airport waiting for an early flight. 

About 30 WWF wrestlers straggled in and sat all around me. 

The thought I had was that one wrestler couldn't fill a night club 

but a whole squadron might fill a small stadium.

This is what the Rock N Roll Revival was about... packing small

stadiums like the Convocation Center in Athen. Even Chuck 

Berry's patented duckwalk would get old after awhile if he tried

to carry the whole evening alone. So these veteran stars came

together to share the stage, increase their audience size and 

get paid to do what they loved to do... Perform.

The Platters, Shirelles, Sha Na Na and a host of others...
Was Bo Diddley there? He might have been. 

Chuck Berry was fo' sure.

* * * 

If you like word games, you may have noticed that 

Bury and Berry are homonyms. Here's a story I created 

using as many homonyms as I could think of, & it was a lot.

How I One the Wore

Universities: Their Decline and Fall

This past week I read an article about the current state of England's universities. I'm sure that an American author could write a similar article on some of what has been happening in our own universities. The article was published in The Unherd, which I've been periodically reading for a year or so. What I like is their in-depth stories and non-aligned views. That is, they publish articles that would likely annoy "both sides of the aisle" so to speak. That is what I like about Reason magazine as well. 

The article that caught my attention was titled How universities were corrupted. The subhead is: Vindictive protectiveness has re-shaped our institutions

The essay by Matthew Goodwin begins like this:

When are we going to do something about the state of our universities? We must surely by now be familiar with the symbols of this unfolding crisis. Philosopher Kathleen Stock, who was harassed by students and staff to such an extent that she was forced to leave her position at the University of Sussex. Noah Carl, the promising research fellow, who was chased out of Cambridge. Tony Sewell, the government advisor who oversaw the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities before suddenly finding his offer of an honorary doctorate at the University of Nottingham withdrawn. Tim Luckhurst, the Principal at Durham who invited Rod Liddle to speak at a dinner and was then suspended after students demanded he be disciplined.

The big concern, and what seems to be at stake here as well, is the pressure being put on schools to move away "from their founding mission to search for truth through free inquiry."

Maybe it has always been this way to some extent. Bertrand Russell's lecture and booklet Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Thought did address this last matter a century ago, but I get the impression that it has been exacerbated in recent years for a variety of reasons. One of these is spelled out in Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt's The Coddling of the American Mind.

* * * 

In a related critique of today's universities, William Deresiewicz sounds a wake-up call to American universities and institutions in an opinion piece titled American education’s new dark age . The subhead tells the story: Colleges have abandoned real learning for wokeism.

Deresiewicz's piece begins with his sharing his own wake-up experience teaching at an elite college in Southern California. "I assumed that they’d arrive with a fairly good idea of how to make an argument with an academic context and that I would be teaching them how to apply those skills to a very different set of rhetorical occasions," he writes. But he was wrong.

They not only didn't know how to construct an argument, they really hadn't learned how to read, or write or think. A little further along he realizes what led to this situation.

To understand how this predicament came to pass, one needs to understand how students manage to get into places like Harvard or the Claremont colleges in the first place. It is not by learning how to read, write, or think. It is by jumping through the endless series of hoops that elite college admissions offices have developed over the decades to winnow down their skyscraper stacks of application folders.

Not only are grades important, but involvement in a dozen extracurricular activities is essential to creating a solid, well-rounded candidate for the Ivy Leagues and other elite schools. In order to also get the sleep one needs, students learn to excel at skimming.

The author states outright that this kind of lifestyle does not produce intellectual engagement. Curiosity and passion must be suppressed, he states. The expertise students master has more to do with how to beat the system rather than learning anything.

Oh yes, they can pass tests. That's the new form of education, teaching to the test.  Don't surprise them by forcing them to think. They don't have time for that.

He goes on...

If that’s the kind of education students have received by the time they get to college, do things get better once they arrive? Not usually. Old habits die hard. Elite students, already competing for the next prize, continue to conduct their lives at the same frenetic pace. At the large mass of institutions below the level of the elite, the problem is less apt to be misdirected zeal than sheer indifference. Courses are a bother; campus culture runs to sports and beer.

 * * * 

The appeal of Wokeism is that it offers relief from the unsustainable emptiness of post-modern cynicism. Wokeism gives people something that appears to me meaningful to believe in. 

You can read the full story here: American Education's New Dark Age.

Comments welcome.

EdNote: I'm interested in your take on these articles. Are they overly harsh and critical, or fairly astute? Please share in the comments.

Related Link

Bertrand Russell's Free Thought and Official Propaganda Has Much to Say about the Current State of Cancel Culture

Iron Sharpens Iron: How Cancel Culture Gets It Wrong

"As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another."
--Proverbs 27:17

This Old Testament proverb has come up more than a few times recently. It's amazing how insights from three thousand years ago continue to have relevance. 

The idea here, I believe, is that as we confront ideas different from our own, we're forced to think more deeply than we might otherwise do. These new ideas may even dismantle our beliefs or perceptions on a matter. The thing is, such challenges may also lead us to dig deeper to see if we've built our worldview on a firm foundation or shifting sands. 

What brought this proverb to mind was the following quote from philosopher/thinker Karl Popper:

"Bold ideas, unjustified anticipations, and speculative thought, are our only means for interpreting nature: our only organon, our only instrument, for grasping her. And we must hazard them to win our prize. Those among us who are unwilling to expose their ideas to the hazard of refutation do not take part in the scientific game." 

In science, ideas that get set forth are on the table to be probed. Conflicting ideas lead to new insights or firmer resolutions. To question is OK. The application of this principle goes far beyond the realm of science. 

Unfortunately, to the degree that universities stifle the free exploration of ideas, to that degree we have failed to equip our students with an essential skill: the ability to think. This is precisely what's wrong with our current culture of negation. 

Sometimes it is through talking things out with others that we figure out what we ourselves really believe. Healthy bull sessions in college dorm rooms help young people recognize  what is "bull" and what is not. 

On many college campuses conservative speakers aren't even permitted to speak for fear that riots will ensue. At Drew University, for example, "Some students ...are attempting to block a conservative, pro-life speaker from lecturing on campus by ripping down flyers and protesting the visit at a student government meeting... Others have circulated social media posts urging students to attend a November 3 student government meeting and ask them to block the conservative speaker."

Here's an article by the American Bar Association making the observation that it is primarily conservative speakers being barred or blocked from speaking on college campuses. The article by Stephen J. Wermiel & Josh Blackman is titled Thwarting Speech on College Campuses. 

Right now college campuses are debating just how much they should allow the free exchange of ideas. If we accept the idea behind Proverbs 27:17, this is a demonstration of weakness on the part of our schools. If they so fear the free flow of information in the marketplace of ideas, how will they ever deal with the realities beyond the borders of campus life?

The authors of The Coddling of the American Mind showed how this current development came about. C.S. Lewis saw the early stages of this development nearly a century ago. When writing my review of his book I cited his observation, "The worst of all public dangers is the committee of public safety." In today's schools we fear ruffling feathers. We want schools to be a "safe" place. 

I keep running into people who say they're abandoning social media because of the lack of freedom to express ideas without creating a backlash, or fearing as such. 

The bad behavior is not solely from the Left. There is lashing out from the Right as well, though on campuses these past five years I've heard more instances of protests from the liberal side. Needless to say, we have drifted far afield from what I believe is the higher ground of dialogue and the once-noble notion that "I may not agree with what you say but I support your right to say it." That principle is part of the wreckage brought about by cancel culture. 

Oddly enough, I was "cancelled" (or sharply criticized) for even mentioning the expression "cancel culture" because it this canceller said doesn't exist any more. "We're so past that," he said, while cancelling me for suggesting it.

These are strange times.  

What College Classes Will Improve Your Odds of Career Success

Assuming that we're talking about people who are interested in careers and being successful in them, what additional classes should students take to augment their preparation for life after academia? That what this NY Post article was about this weekend: Whatever your major, include these must-have college courses for career success.

The article begins with a few kudos for what college can do for you. Then it suggests there are some additional courses that will help you succeed in business or whatever comes next. 

What follows are the six classes recommended by Joe Flanagan, a senior employment advisor at VelvetJobs, along with my comments on each. If you read this, please take a minute to leave a comment as regards what class or classes you think should be added to a college education.

1. Computer Science: Introduction to Programming
When the internet came along in the 90s, I bought a book titled Learn To Write HTML In Two Weeks. In two weeks I knew how to create a basic web page using the Hyper-Text Markup Language (code) that creates web pages. 

98% of us will never need to do any programming. To understand the concept of programming to you really need to to pay tuition to learn basics that you will never really use? There are YouTube videos and books that can give you this foundational insight. It's not rocket science.

2. Marketing/Branding
If they teach a course on personal marketing and branding, it may be useful. It's important to know how to market yourself. To market yourself it helps to know yourself. For this, I recommend Richard Nelson Bolles' What Color Is Your Parachute? For the overall marketing of your self I recommend Personal Marketing Strategies. Unfortunately, the latter is out of print, but there are usually a few used copies available on Amazon.com. (If my own book on marketing ever gets published I will be recommending that as well.)

3. Graphic Design
They also suggest Photoshop as well. Now frankly, in my career, every single person who I've known with Photoshop skills learned it by using tutorials online. This is not something you pay college tuition prices for. My personal career required a grasp of design principles. I was in advertising and promotions. But like so many other things, if you are motivated, borrow every book you can from the library and read them, then buy the best one or two for your personal library.  

4. Intro to Statistics
This makes sense if you are going to be in management. Learning how to use stats and analyze data has a place. If you are an entrepreneur, understanding how to gather and read data will be essential.

5. English
Those who can communicate effectively will go further than those who cannot. Sadly, our K-12 schools are failing to teach even the basics of English these days. Colleges have a remedial English class for incoming freshman so they learn how to write a paper. Good heavens. This after 12 years of English classes? Reading, 'Riting and 'Rithmatic are the basic foundation stones of an education. If you have not mastered these at this point (before heading off to college) I recommend a tutor. 

6. Personal Finance
This is such an important skill. College students are inundated with credit card offers. My father's response when I started getting them in 1970: "You're not getting a credit card." Debt is a major burden for those who bear it. 

There's much to learn with regard to handling finances. Is there really a class for this? I know that there's plenty of ways to make bad financial decisions. The best way to learn financial matters is a mentor. Find someone whom you trust. 

* * * 

You can read the full article here.

What do you think?

Are Children Today Being Raised "Too Safe to Succeed"?

"The worst of all public dangers is the committee of public safety."--C.S. Lewis

This past month I read The Coddling of the American Mind, an insightful book that helped me understand some of the controversial events taking place on campuses the past few years.  The book is by a first amendment expert (Greg Lukianoff) and a social psychologist (Jonathan Haidt), which I found to be an interesting combination.

The book is awash with disturbing anecdotes that show how screwed up things have become as the Z-generation enters into the college experience. One of the problems, which they go to great lengths to demonstrate, is that our efforts to raise children in a "safe" world has had the unintended consequence of making them fragile.

The authors have been fairly prolific writers, with articles in high profile magazines such as The Atlantic. The following anecdote is from an article in Reason titled The Fragile Generation, by Haigt and Lenore Skenazy. After citing two or three examples of society being overprotective they write:

And then there was the query that ran in Parents magazine a few years back: "Your child's old enough to stay home briefly, and often does. But is it okay to leave her and her playmate home while you dash to the dry cleaner?" Absolutely not, the magazine averred: "Take the kids with you, or save your errand for another time." After all, "you want to make sure that no one's feelings get too hurt if there's a squabble."

As you read that, you were probably as stunned as I to see the editors' rationale for not leaving the kids home. You don't want anyone's feelings hurt if there is a squabble.

Really? The subtitle of the article is "Bad policy and paranoid parenting are making kids too safe to succeed."

Whatever happened to the stories we were told about how baby birds had to break out of their shells on their own, or they wouldn't thrive. That illustration from nature was applied to life. You may want to help but then the baby birds will fail to learn something important that evidently is imprinted in their little brains.

When I saw the C. S. Lewis quote about "the committee of public safety" it dawned on me that our current over-protective parenting styles and "safety culture" did not suddenly spring up. It's had a much longer evolution than I'd realized.

Yes, it's good to have safe streets where you won't get mugged or shot, but safety from getting into an argument while playing, lest feelings be ruffled? If your kid sprains an ankle playing football in the front yard, should the parents worry about being carted off to jail for negligence?

When I was growing up we would have annual family reunions in which dozens of cousins would play unsupervised for 12 hours a day while the parents played cards or caught up on family stories. We played kick the can, spud and other games, and one year even created a "haunted house" in my aunt's basement.

When my parents went out and my brothers and I were left home alone we often played a game we'd created called Boston Strangler. The game didn't produce nightmares, nor did it cause any of us psychological damage. Sometimes my younger brothers couldn't wait for mom and dad to go out so we could play again.

My aim here is to raise questions and hopefully create an interest in learning more about what has been happening in our current period in history. You can follow these links to learn more.

Related Links
The Fragile Generation
The Three Great Untruths that Are Harming Young Americans
TheCoddling.com

What are the Pros and Cons of Today's Most Controversial Issues? Here's a Place to Start

Have you ever held a position on an issue and wondered why or how anyone could hold the contrary position? Or, have you ever held a position on an issue in which everyone seemed in opposition to your personal convictions?

Well, here's a great resource that might help you gain insights on how the other side thinks. Or, if seeking rhetorical firepower it could give you ammunition for what your gut has been telling you all along. (Read on.)

When not listening to audio books I occasionally would have National Public Radio (NPR) on during my lunch hour as I drove to and from wherever I was eating that day. For a period of time (and maybe still, I don't know) they would have a Friday debate on various issues with two people for and two people against a proposition on this or that contemporary issue. If I remember correctly, they would poll the audience before the debate and then again afterwards. The team that influenced the most audience members to the cross the divide would be declared winner.

What I liked about it was how it showed the listening audience that even the most controversial issues can have two sides. Whether capital punishment, concealed handguns, banning books or the relevance of the electoral college, all kinds of issues have smart people on opposite sides of the coin.

In their book The Coddling of the American Mind, Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff note the polarization that has been occurring in our contemporary culture, and how unhealthy it is on several levels. On many college campuses it seems that kids want to only hear one point of view on things, concluding that any view beyond my own is illegitimate, nonconstructive, invalid, not worth consideration and harmful. 

This last point is a major point of the book. In our efforts to raise the current generation in a "safe" way we have made them so fragile that they may have a hard time when they get into the real world of hard knocks.

This singleminded group-think is not just college kids. It has become pervasive in all age groups and demographics. As I have noted elsewhere, citing Eric Hoffer and Orwell, it makes the masses easier to manipulate when they can be induced to clump together in fear in an Us vs. Them stance. 

What the writers of Coddling note is that college used to be a place where students were taught How to think, not What to think. Today this fundamental idea is being challenged on many campuses. Hence the student riots and protests designed to keep certain speakers out these past few years.

I remember sitting in an adult Sunday school class in the 60s in which guests representing various alternative beliefs were invited so they could present their views and be questioned. I can't recall most other than the one from SDS, Students for a Democratic Society, an antiwar group which eventually spawned the Weathermen, a radical branch that used terrorist tactics including bombings. (In one 18 month period from 1971-72 there were five bombings a day around the country!)

The point here is that giving voice to other perspectives was all part of what students fought for in the Sixties Free Speech Movement. How strange it is to find students fighting for just the opposite, shutting down speakers whom they disagree with.

ALL THIS TO SAY that for open-minded people seeking to examine both sides of various issues, the pro and con of Health & Medicine, Education, Political Issues, Science & Technology and more, this is a site worth bookmarking: PROCON.ORG

I've not gone through every category here but the topics I reviewed seem to represent, in a fair and intelligent manner, both sides on many of our most controversial issues. 

It's an approach that I like because few of us, if any, can be experts in every category of every issue. Yet somehow we're continually prodded to "take a stand" on all these issues based on whatever media feed we pay attention to. Sometimes people will even pressure you. "How can can you not know what you think on this?" But the truth is, unless you have researched things a bit, how can you not remain on the sidelines? Issues are complex and multi-faceted.

I believe it is useful to listen to the other side. How can we practice discernment if we always wear earplugs? The ability to discern, to weigh things in the balance, to give them their proper weight, is all part of growing up.

Related Links
The Coddling of the American Mind and its associated website.
Bubble-Wrapped Americans: How the U.S. Became Obsessed with Physical and Emotional Safety

What is the Lifespan of a Work of Art?

My last semester at Ohio University I immersed myself in a painting project at Siegfried Hall. Throughout the spring I committed myself, among other things, to an immensely large eight- by twelve-foot canvas that was intended to demonstrate a philosophy I had concocted, that a painting or work of art is “alive” only when it continues to evolve or change or be invested with new energy by the artist/creator. My conviction, youthful and idealistic as it now appears in retrospect, was that the ever evolving process of change is an evidence of life. To cease changing was the equivalent of death.

So I painted three to five hours a day for many months. Perhaps it was a form of entertainment for others who used the room for drawing classes. My aims were ambitious because each iteration was so completely different. On occasion I turned the painting sideways so that it stood vertically, twelve foot high. Most often it lay on its side. I wrapped it in garden hoses. I punctured it and wove twine through it. I covered it with newsprint like wallpaper and painted over that. And throughout the process I took pictures along the way.

As graduation neared I planned to set it afire and ride through it on a bicycle. But the graduation ceremonies and eagerness of friends and classmates to move on with their lives made this imaginary spectacle seem like a waste of energy and life T.S. Eliot’s Prufock I disappeared with a whimper and not a bang. The painting itself was left for the janitors to discard.

This past month while cleaning my office I discovered that I still had in my possession many of the Ektachrome slides that I had taken of this evolving work of art. In translating these images to digital form a new insight about my premise or theory emerged. The work of art does not die when it ceases to change. After the last brushstroke, there is always the possibility of resurrection. And there are also the offspring.

Examples of offspring would include the countless works by countless artists inspired by Picasso. A couple years ago the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art displayed a travelling exhibition of works inspired Picasso. On the wall would be the original, and alongside might be pieces by Jasper Johns or some other modern era painter.

There may be only one Mona Lisa but her offspring are many, including Mona Lisas by Warhol, Picasso, Lichtenstein and ever the Simpsons' Matt Groenig. The famed woman with an enigmatic smile continues to inspire and bear children.

But what about the work itself? When it ceases from changing is it dead? No, it never stops changing. Time and the elements leave their fingerprinits. Colors fade, materials deteriorate. The arm of Michaelangelo's David was broken off when hit by a bench thrown from an upper story. (It used to be in a public space, not a museum.)

And then there are the unexpected twists that no one could foresee. For example, in converting my slides to digital I can begin to manipulate the images with Photoshop and other software programs, re-defining them, re-creating entirely new images, altering them to such an extent that they no longer resemble themselves... or simply enhancing them subtly, again impermanently.


At the end of it all I've concluded my college thesis about painting doesn't hold water. But it did hold my attention, and the pictures you see here were birthed in that studio space on the fourth floor of Siegfried Hall.

What "big ideas" about art or life did you have when you were young that have not stood the test of time? Something to think about.

Things I Learned In College: A Baker's Dozen

The college experience isn't just about what you learn in the classroom. Here's a short list of some of the lessons I learned.

1. Waterbeds are overrated.
2. The shortest distance between two points is called jaywalking.
3. How to play harmonica.
4. If there is a civil discussion taking place on a stage in front of a large crowd, and someone grabs the mic and shouts, “Follow me,” most people in the room will follow him, just to see what will happen next.
5. Some girls are only there to get a guy.
6. Some guys are only there to see how many girls they can get.
7. Other guys are only there because they got a scholarship to do something they probably won’t do the rest of their lives anyways.
8. In a class where you are given the privilege of grading yourself, when you give yourself a B everyone else will make fun of you.
9. Life is not fair. Rich kids get more breaks when they get busted. Other kids end up in jail.
10. I discovered and learned to appreciate jazz.
11. Things are not always what they seem.
12. Darkness means different things to different people. When a girl asks you to walk her home, sometimes it is because she doesn’t want to get raped.

13. When the sun comes up, it's morning.

Hoping the sun is up in your hearts... Make the most of your day!

ednote: many of the drawings and paintings on this blog are available as limited edition giclee prints, and most are available for sale. Inquire for more information.

The Ethics of Usury

"Debt, n. An ingenious substitute for the chain and whip of the slavedriver." ~ Ambrose Bierce

The word usury comes from a Latin word meaning "interest" or "excessive interest", and originally mean the charging of interest on loans. Two dictionary definitions that pretty much give shape to the concept are these:

2: the lending of money with an interest charge for its use ; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates

3: an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest ; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money

On Wednesday, our paper picked up an L.A. Times story titled, "Student loans turn into crushing burden for unwary borrowers." It begins by telling the story of Natalie Hickey who graduated Brooks Institute with $140,000 in student loans. Some of these were at an 18% inyterest rate, which feels outrageous to me. Her monthly payments are currently 1700 dollars on the interest alone.

Another story is titled "Families losing appetite for college debt" and the Badger Herald highlights the issue with this story, "Why college debt hurts generation."

Over the past fifty years there has been this major push to get kids into college. Was it because the kids all needed college? Or was it because when the Baby Boomers were in college during the Sixties, they built too many dorms and schools?

Everything has value, but exactly how much value is often difficult to define. The cost of college has risen 439% since 1982, but has the value of a college education risen by 400%? All these kids get told that in order to compete in the modern world, they need college. The banking industry obviously steps in an sees all these young people as a source of ready revenue. They are young, inexperienced, easily enticed by the prospects of easy money to help get that essential degree. They do not understand the heavy burden debt and interest on debt can become.

There's another surprise waiting for this debt-laden generation now entering the workforce. Multinational corporations are now outsourcing white collar jobs to India. By 2015, according to Robyn Meredith in her insightful study of the rise of India and China, The Elephant and the Dragon, more than 3 million white collar jobs will have been exported. Programmers and positions that once garnered six figure incomes are being swept overseas, leaving service sector jobs in their wake.

In short, young people have imbibed a false gospel, never questioning the message because their parents were likewise mesmerized by its apparent validity.

In order to help them solve the Watergate scandal, Deep Throat encouraged Woodward & Bernstein to "follow the money." Let's see where the money goes in this instance. To colleges and universities. And all that interest, where does it go? Lending institutions. And where does it come from?

Please understand, this is not an attempt to denigrate the value of a college education. It is only a challenge to the ethic of loaning money to people who do not fully understand the compact they are getting into. Until you are free from debt, you are not free to come and go as you please.

Similar unconscionable lending is occuring now in Third World countries where people are being given loans at twenty and thirty percent interest, without ever having had training in what interest rates mean. It is essentially a suckerpunch to those who are already economically on the ropes. What looks like easy money ends up being a ball and chain.

Ben Franklin called debt a vice, Disraeli called it the mother of folly and crime. But our modern era wants us to believe this is a perfectly normal way of life. I'm not really sure what I think of that.