When I was a teenager, my mother sat me down and told me, "You have a choice: Your father and I will either pay for your college education, or for your wedding." I told her, "College, of course." How else was I going to meet a husband? Why else would you go to a private liberal arts college?
Right-wing billionaires threw a hissy fit in recent weeks. The 99 percent are persecuting them, the wealthy ones whined. That whole Occupy Wall Street thing hurt their feelings, conservative 1 percenters pouted.
If the Tribune is going to use the pages of the New York Times to write about wealthy donors to Texas gubernatorial campaigns, it would seem the Times would want them to disclose they are also taking money from those same people.
The wisdom of privacy is fundamental to the healthy evolution and future of human beings. It is perhaps the most essential ingredient of the natural order and balance in the social milieu and for a healthy human existence on earth. It makes the privacy revolution we are facing real, relevant, and vital to preserving ourselves as societies and individuals.
Heated debates have erupted in the U.S., Israel, France, and Britain over the past few weeks about when it is appropriate to use "Nazi" to describe someone you dislike. I propose a simple set of rules to guide our judgment, illustrated through four recent examples.
Perkins' letter is, in many respects, little more than a more dramatic and ill-advised riff on the standard Republican and conservative talking points that the wealthy are successful job creators and those who criticize their obscene accumulation of wealth are lazy, ne'er-do-wells or un-American.
There's a rule of thumb in cyberspace etiquette known as Godwin's Law. A variation of that law boils down to this: He who first compares the other side to Nazis loses, and the conversation is at an end. Unless you're billionaire Tom Perkins, who seems dedicated to digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself.
I put this issue to my podcast buddies on The Ohio Revolt, and I was surprised by the conversation. For me, it may be an irreversible, inevitable decline. To them, it was an issue of better leadership and better long-term planning.
The top story on Thursday's New York Times mobile edition was titled "U.N. Says Lag in Confronting Climate Woes Will be Costly." Why was the newspaper featuring a story on something that's so unpopular?
There is one reason and one reason only for a father choosing to abandon their child -- himself. A woman going to work doesn't make a man abandon his child. Conversely, A woman staying home instead of going to work doesn't make a man stay.
It's not just about educating teachers. It's also about the performance of our students' students, the efficacy of our education system and what we can do as educators and teachers to improve that.
A new study documenting that just 90 companies are responsible for two-thirds of manmade carbon emissions since the Industrial Revolution triggered some pushback in the blogosphere. Blame the likes of BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell for global warming? Not fair!
Americans who haven't given up on liberal democracy should pay close attention to what's going on behind Singapore's glittering facade before they praise Yale's role in plunging Yale-NUS' idealistic young students and faculty into a reinvention of liberal education there.
Welcome back (after we took last week off, to digest) to our Friday roundup! We should have two weeks of news to cover, but nothing much of anything strange or startling happened Thanksgiving week, so we're going to concentrate on just this current week.
The Family tells the true story of how Laskin's family of Torah scribes and humble shopkeepers split into three branches at the turn of the last century.
There's no getting around the fact that we have to wean the world off fossil fuels as soon as possible, and one of the answers, my friend, is blowing in the wind.