Santa Cruz Observer

Wanted: University president. No experience necessary, self-starter preferred

By  TOM HONIG

I think I would have been a great choice for the job of president of the University of California. I met Clark Kerr once, and I've interviewed most of the chancellors to serve at UC Santa Cruz. I attended at UC campus (Santa Barbara,) which is more than new UC president Janet Napolitano has done.

Alas, I don't know as many rich folks, and I'm not connected to various funding sources as the politically savvy Ms. Napolitano. On the other hand, I'd work for a hell of a lot less than her $570,000 yearly salary, and I wouldn't even ask for a free place to live.

Ms. Napolitano is probably a quick study, and maybe she's even read Clark Kerr's far-reaching Master Plan for Higher Education, the document that boosted the University of California into world-wide dominance. But don't expect such a document from her. After all, higher education isn't to be found on her resume. 

When President John F. Kennedy named his brother, Bobby, as attorney general in 1961, people then questioned his lack of experience. JFK met it head on, saying:  "I can't see that it's wrong to give him a little legal experience before he goes out to practice law."

That's why I'd be such a great UC president. Like Ms. Napolitano, I'd work hard at learning what higiher education is like. At a fraction of the cost.

Oh, those miserable attack ads

One of the blessings of living in California is that the presidential race will not be close -- it's safely in the hands of President Barack Obama.

No, that's not an endorsement. Rather, I'm just commenting on  how we'll be spared the spectacle of all those attack ads on television. Those are already airing  in tossup states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. The latest attack ads from both the Obama side and the Romney side are as dreary as they are effective. Which brings to mind a column I wrote during the California gubernatorial campaign two years ago.

So I'm reproducing it here: it still rings true and it sums up how miserable this horribly negative campaign will be between now and November. It's as follows:

 

The campaign commercial you'll never see

By TOM HONIG

            Two-time Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson refused to appear in televised commercial during his campaigns in 1952 and 1956 -- saying that doing so was beneath his dignity.

            Too bad that Adlai's not on the ballot today. He'd get my vote.

            Election season once was the political junkie's most exciting time of year. It was like draft day for the fantasy football fanatic.

            Alas, no more. The barrage of television commercials is as depressing as it is offensive, with messaging and negativity aimed squarely at manipulating the least informed voters. Attack ads do two things: they make anyone running for office look greedy and/or crooked; they also effectively win elections. Alas, that's the problem. No one -- winners or losers -- emerge unscathed.

            Journalist Michael Kinsley said it well when he described how what is often termed a "gaffe" by a candidate is actually one of those rare moments when he or she accidentally goes off message and tells the truth.

            I've yet to see a television commercial during this campaign season that doesn't tick me off. So, in the spirit of offering an alternative, here's the script for a campaign commercial that I'd like to see. It's for any office and a candidate from either party -- or, even better, an independent.

 

            SCENE: A candidate sits at a desk. A simple backdrop, maybe a shelf with a few books. There's no American flag (not because we don't like the flag, but we're tired of phony patriotic props.)

 

            The candidate speaks:

            "Good evening, voters. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight, because I've decided that the professionally produced attack commercials add nothing to the public debate.

            "Before I start, let me point out that my opponent is an ethical person with high standards, someone whom I respect. I do think, however, that I'm the preferable candidate, and by the time I finish this talk, I hope you'll agree.

            "We have a number of challenges before us. Simply put, our government does not have the resources we need in order to satisfy everyone. In fact, governing involves knowing what NOT to do more often than embarking on new programs. Please keep in mind that few government programs benefit everyone. In fact, any new legislation carries with it the possibility of unintended consequences. So I'm not going to promise that I'll bring every one of you prosperity. I won't, because I can't.

            "Our worst problems won't be easy to solve. Take crime, for example. It's horrible when anyone is victimized by a violent crime, but the reality is that crime rates are actually going down. When politicians say that they're going to be 'tough on crime,' what they're really saying is that they want your vote. They want to scare you and then offer up some ineffective program like 'Three Strikes' that ends up doing nothing more than driving up prison costs.

            "Or take the pension problem. I'd love to go on and on about how irresponsible politicians have moved the state toward bankruptcy simply because they didn't stand up to the unions. That may be true, but blaming them doesn't solve the problem. The answer is to pursue legal means to reduce the costs. Unfortunately, we're going to have to cut programs in order to pay off these deals that never should have been made in the first place.

            "Education. We have some major problems here. The sad reality is that public education is not producing the results that we want. Just ask any community college teacher, and she'll tell you that students are coming in without basic skills. Here again, I could blame teachers, or parents, or administrators. I'm not going to do that -- unless they continue to act as a roadblock to find solutions. Some charters schools have had dizzying success. Instead of fighting them, let's try to study what they're doing and adapt it.

            "My opponent has been hollering at me on his attack ads because I'm not enthusiastically supporting everything with the word 'green' in it. Others are mad at me because I believe that global climate change is, indeed, a threat. What neither side is doing is looking toward good science. What policy will have an impact? Using nuclear power might be a better answer than having rich people drive Priuses. Are we ready to put aside our prejudices and do what's best for the environment?

            "I hope you vote for me. I don't have easy answers. But I will work with anyone who has good ideas -- no matter their political affiliation. Thank you."

             FINAL NOTE: I have no expectation that any candidate at any level will use this script.

New center a huge addition for Santa Cruz and for the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary

By TOM HONIG

When President George H.W. Bush designated a huge area of California coastal waters are the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary back in 1992, no one really knew exactly how the designation would impact life here.

Actually, one important impact was known immediately: a ban on offshoroe oil exploration here. At the time, opponents of drilling expressed surprise bordering on shock that Bush -- a longtime oil man -- would protect such a huge area, running from the waters off Marin County all the way south to San Luis Obispo county. (More on that later).

But this week -- 20 years after the sanctuary designation was announced -- the federal government and local officials completed a most important step in the evolution of the sanctuary: the opening of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Exploration Center. The facility -- at 35 Pacific Avenue, near the Municipal Wharf -- features 7,000 square feet of exhibits. It doesn't have fish or other "squishy"' things; it instead concentrates on exhibits on concentrating on biodiversity, geology and marine conservation.

The center does a couple important things for Santa Cruz:

1) It lends an educational element to the Beach Area. I've long thought that environmentalism is much more than just limiting growth; it's about educating people about science and the environment. Those out in the ocean -- sailors, surfers, divers and swimmers -- already know how special and important the marine world is. Now, with all the fascinating scientific displays in the center, the offshore world is being brought even to those visitors and residents who have never event gotten their feet wet.

2) It gets Santa Cruz noticed as being an important part of Monterey Bay. Those fascinated with the undersea world know about the Monterey Bay Aquarium at Cannery Row -- and maybe other facilities like the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.  Now, Santa Cruz has its own major destination -- the Sanctuary Exploration Center. And, this new center can also increase the visibility of another important coastal-related destination -- Long Marine Lab's Seymour Center, a facility whose exhibits feature live animals on display and one that's a great complement to the new center. Visitors to the Exploration Center just might be motivated to add the Seymour Center to their itinerary. (Note to UCSC officials: How about funding a shuttle that would connect the two facilities?

The new center was dedicated this week with all the usual pomp and speeches from various city and federal officials. One nice note: in addition to the elected officials, the ceremony also featured Bonnie Lipscomb, shown at left, Santa Cruz's executive director of economic development, whose behind-the-scenes coordination with the federal government facilitated the entire project.

Also speaking was U.S. Rep Sam Farr, who gave considerable credit to those in Santa Cruz who have supported marine conservation over the years -- former U.S. Rep. Leon Panetta, former supervisor Gary Patton, longtime activist Dan Haifley and others. Still I was amused by his downplaying of key Republicans in the process -- former U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson for one, who played a role in stopping the sale of offshore oil leases and who also worked hard in support of the sanctuary. Likewise the man who designated the large sanctuary area -- former President George H.W. Bush; Farr intimated that Bush was kind of forced into the decision and that he did so only as an election-year ploy. (Of course, Democrats never stoop to that, right?)

I mentioned the dismissal of Republicans to a politically savvy friend, and he brought up an even better strategy for Farr and the Democrats -- point to the environmental record of "old-school" Republicans like Bush and Wilson and point out how far the current-day GOP has turned its back on the environmental movement.

Hey -- all that political talk detracts from the genuinely important development that's signified by the new Exploration Center. It's an important part of Santa Cruz, of the Monterey Bay Area and even the entire Marine Sanctuary system. Federal officials have already predicted that this Exploration Center will prove to be the most-visited such spot in the entire national system.

Santa Cruz leaders encounter San Luis Obispo

By TOM HONIG

Take 69 Santa Cruz County folks from a variety of businesses, school districts, government bodies and non-profits, put them on a couple of buses and what do you do with them?

This week, the Santa Cruz Area Chamber of Commerce took them to San Luis Obispo, where this aggregation met with leaders from similar walks of life to learn more about how another community -- somewhat similar to Santa Cruz -- handles the kinds of issues that people here do every day.

The San Luis Obispo trip was an idea promoted by Cabrillo College President Brian King, who looked at the trip this way: 

"We have an opportunity to learn much from San Luis Obispo, a community that is in many ways like us. We will have an opportunity to evaluate how some of their initiatives might work in our counties and cities. We will be able to test and temper our notions and plans with their experiences. And, we will discuss mutual problems and complexities with  them to explore solutions neither of us have yet imagined.

"However ... I believe that the greatest benefit will be the 30-some hours we will spend together getting to know each other better."

So did it work? In a word -- yes. Our group met with San Luis business leaders, politicians, school officials and others who are trying to figure out solutions to the same problems that exist here. One particular issue that reared its head time and time again was the question of how to balance economic vitality with environmental protection.

I'll follow up on that issue in particular in future articles. Also, I'll be publishing reactions and thoughts from those on the trip.

And as for the most obvious question: was the junket fun? You're damn right it was. No, it wasn't a party like the Merry Pranksters, but it served to remind the participants that Santa Cruz is blessed with community folks who are not only bright but also simpatico. It's nice to be reminded of that.

Trouble for newspapers, Republicans as college students increasingly are headed elsewhere

What do newspapers and the Republican party have in common?

According to a new study of college students published by the Panetta Institute at Cal State Monterey Bay, both institutions had better realize that they're in trouble with young people.

The number of students who say the receive most of their information about politics and civic affairs from community newspapers now stands at 8 percent. Back in 2001, 21 percent of students said they kept up on things with the newspaper. Meanwhile, the proportion of students who say they look to Internet web sites stands at 59 percent. Another 12 percent keep up on politics exclusively through social media. And, presumably, that number is growing thanks to the increasing role of social media sites like Facebook.

As for the Republicans, four leading candidates -- including the presumptive candidate, Mitt Romney, have net negative ratings.. Romney, for example, scores at only 21 percent positive compared to 42 percent negative among college students.

President Barack Obama -- despite some significant questions about the economy -- remains popular among the collegiate set. He's at 57 percent positive and 24 percent negative.

Obama's popularity comes despite a profoundly negative view of political leadership in general. Some 47 percent of students say they're satisfied -- but 51 percent are not.

Still, there are ominous signs for Republicans, particularly when it comes to social issues. College students support the idea of gay marriage by a 75-22 percent margin. And as for abortion, the number of pro-choice advocates making up about 67 percent of students.

The survey was done by Hart Research Associates of Washington D.C., which has completed the survey of college students nationwide since 2001. For the complete report, check out the Panetta Institute website.

Why we're fat and what to do about it

By TOM HONIG

CAPITOLA -- Science writer Gary Taubes questions the medical community’s conventional wisdom about why Americans get fat, and he’s bringing his message to Santa Cruz County.

The author of the best-selling book “Why We Get Fat,” Taubes takes aim at the role of refined sugars and carbohydrates – and says that dietitians and doctors are misreading “fairly obvious” data about why America has an obesity epidemic.

Taubes spoke Wednesday at New Brighton Middle School in Capitola at an event sponsored by the County Office of Education. County Superintendent of Schools Michael Watkins introduced him by saying that obesity and Type 2 Diabetes have reached epidemic proportions in Santa Cruz County.  According to the California Healthy Kids Survey, 38 percent  of  students in grades 7, 9 and 11  in Watsonville are overweight and 30 percent of teens in Santa Cruz are overweight or in danger of being

Taubes, in an interview, said, “It’s clear that refined carbohydrates and sugars lead to insulin resistance in the human body.  And that leads to a suite of the diseases well known in Western civilizations. It comes down to getting carb-rich foods out of our diets.”

Taubes studied applied physics at Harvard and aerospace engineering at Stanford before receiving a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University in 1981. He’s the author of several books and is on the staff of Discover Magazine. He also is a fellow at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health.

But it was a cover story for the New York Times Magazine in 2002 that brought him into prominence as an expert on diet and weight loss. The article, “What if it’s all been a big fat lie,” questioned whether the often-recommended low-fat diets popularized by the likes of Dean Ornish actually benefited Americans who have only been growing more obese each year.

Taubes, a college football defensive lineman and a man who himself was overweight, had lost weight on the controversial Atkins diet – which favors meat, other animal products and vegetables. It excludes most carbohydrate-rich food like rice, bread, potatos, cookies, pasta and, perhaps most of all, soda pop.

“The typical advice from the medical community is that people are fat because they eat too many calories and don’t exercise enough.”

Surprisingly, he said, the evidence doesn’t support that statement. “It’s sugar that does it.” And that’s not just sugar, but also the carbs that convert to sugar.

“If I’m right, they’ve got it wrong,” he continued. Fewer calories and more exercise is “a paradigm of energy balance.” Rather, he sees obesity as resulting from a “hormonal defect” – and that can be the result of taxing the insulin system.

And more exercise isn’t necessarily the answer to weight loss. In fact, he argues, that exercising won’t help if it leads to someone chowing down on unhealthy carbs.

“Look at it this way. A basset hound is chubby and is basically a couch potato. A greyhound is sleek and fast. You can withhold all the food you want from the basset  hound and put him on a treadmill for hours every day, but you won’t get a greyhound. You’ll just get an emaciated basset hound.”

Taubes asserted that doctors and the U.S. government have misinterpreted scientific data on dietary research. Counting calories and eating low-fat foods exclusively has been proved not to be true. His evidence? That Americans continue to get fatter.

He said that research essentially proves what American parents told their kids prior to  the 1960s --  go light on bread, pasta and sweets. “Those people were right all along.”

“It’s’ not about eating less and exercising more,” he repeated. “The issue is this. Is a bowl of oatmeal with skim milk better for you than eggs and bacon? The data say that eggs and bacon is the healthier way to eat.”

At the COE-sponsored event Taubes repeated an oft-sounded call to get sodas and fruit juices out of the schools. But substituting those items for sugar-rich carbohydrates isn’t the answer.

Taubes  is the second speaker in the field of obesity to be invited by the COE. Last year, Dr. Robert Lusting – who recently was featured on 60 Minutes – brought a similar message.

For a YouTube presentation by Taubes, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4 

 

Panetta comes home a lot -- big deal

Is anyone else as not-bothered by the recent Associated Press report that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has flown home to Carmel Valley more than two dozen times, largely at taxpayer expense?

Even at some $800,000 -- it's a minuscule amount, compared to the Pentagon's estimated $614 billion budget. (It's .00000130 of the budget).

But as so often is the case, no one answers the more important question -- what has Panetta added to the public good -- not only as defense secretary, but as a congressman, White House budget director, White House chief of staff and CIA director?

Good heavens -- the man is 73 and running perhaps the most important institution in the world. Hey -- our safety stem directly from his judgments. I'm glad he's heading home on weekends to wife and family. It's in our interest to take good care of him.

With all the major budget issues, the public dialogue continues to focus on inane details. President Obama's "dates" to New York with his wife. Mitt Romney's perfectly legal 15 percent tax payment. Good God, people used to complain about Nixon flying to California too much.

It's insignifant. And these people have some pressure on them. Let them de-stress. (Even Clinton needed that).

It reminds me of that great Shel Silverstein song ("May the man who has his finger on the button have a lovely day today. I hope nothing hangs him up or ticks him off or bums him out in any way...")

May they all have a good day.

The media and complexity in the Middle East

By TOM HONIG

Let's face it. The ever-shortening attention span of the American public is leaving most forms of the media in tatters. Exhibit A -- the Panetta Institute's presentation this week of two Middle East experts who spent 90 minutes discussing what Sylvia Panetta called "the stubborn complexity of conflict in this region."

Middle East experts Dennis Ross (who has served both Republican and Democratic administrations) and Fran Townsend (an adviser to President George W. Bush) wended through a compelling yet byzantine examination of the region.

And how could any account of 15 column inches or 28 seconds on television fairly summarize what was said.

As Ross commented to moderator Frank Sessno: "If you look at the region as a whole (from Libya all the way to Afghanistan) any  one area would be enough (to qualify as a major issue.)

Still, any trained journalist could pick out the lede: Iran's nuclear threat.

Each expert came at the issue a bit differently, with Ross citing evidence that economic sanctions just might be working. Here's why:

-- Iran's currency has been devalued by half

-- Protests in front of Iranian banks

-- Iran is finding difficulty in selling oil at a high price (despite worldwide price increases).

-- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- Iran's supreme leader -- is bringing in moderates to the government and has also (curiously) raised the subject that "nuclear weapons are a sin.

Despite these signs, Townsend said, the thought of nuclear weapons and a potential preemptive attack from Israel "still keeps me up at night."

So here you go. This account covers maybe one-twentieth of what was said, and so far hasn't even brought up Afghanistan, Syria, Palestinian issues, Saudi Arabia, Qatar,  Bahrain or the rest.

Maybe that's why Charlie Sheen and Lady Gaga and Tim Tebow are better covered in the media than the Middle East. But that's also why the Panetta Lecture Series is so welcome. 

The next in the series will be April 9, a Monday. It'll feature a discussion on the economy with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and former U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson. Standby tickets are sometimes available at the Panetta Institute at 831-582-4200.

Occupational education and the economy

Second in a series

By TOM HONIG

Last week the Chamber of Commerce presented data about the local retail economy. The night before,  the County Office of Education presented its first Regional Occupational Program Advisory Night -- an opportunity for business people to get involved in local career education.

The two events have a connection.

One of the problems that retailers have in Santa Cruz is that an astonishing 85 percent of retail purchasing by Santa Cruz residents goes outside the county. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one big explanation is that so many people -- 30,000 or more -- travel outside the county to go to work. They shop where they work. At the same time, local employers fret that they have jobs available for qualified workers -- but they can't find them here in town.

That's where the County Office of Education's ROP program fits in. Yes, it's vocational education, but with a big difference from the old days. Mark Hodges, director of the program, explained it this way: "We've come a long way from the vocational ed of the past. Our program gives kids a reason to learn and stay in school."

In other words, ROP actually blends vocational ed with college prep. Hodges explained it this way: "If I was going to learn to fly a plane and could choose to be taught by someone with a degree in civil aeronautics who hasn't flown a plane or some who has flown -- I'd choose the one who had actually flown a plane."

That's who teaches in ROP -- those with work experience who go through a special credentialed program. The list of available programs is impressive -- from agribusiness to web design, from athletic training to construction.

These applied programs don't subtract from scholastic programs. They add to it. For example, imagine a student trying to memorize biology concepts. Take that same student and put her in a sports medicine class and she'll be motivated to learn about injuries at the cellular level.

This, in a nutshell, is how education can help the Santa Cruz economy. It won't happen overnight. But the ROP program serves more than 4,000 students a year in some 40 different courses. Also, the program coordinates its programs with Cabrillo College, also an important institution in the preparation for jobs.

That's not to say there aren't challenges. Rock Pfotenhauer, a dean at Cabrillo College, shared with the audience a shocking statistic: that only about 10 percent of incoming freshman are college ready. The question is whether there's a solution.

These are challenging times for education, both here and across the country. Is occupational learning the solution? It's worth a shot.

On retail, leakage, business and education

First in a series

By TOM HONIG

At a Chamber of Commerce meeting this week, an old statistic came rising out of the data pile -- still as shocking as the day it was reported several months ago: some 85 percent of potential retail dollars are being spent outside of Santa Cruz.

There are a hundred reasons for that kind of "leakage," as it's called by those in business. You can point to social problems or customer-unfriendly parking or even a lack of national retailers. But the biggest -- and maybe the most difficult to solve -- is that so many Santa Cruz residents driver elsewhere for their jobs. In other words, if you're working in Silicon Valley and you need a shirt or some shoes, you're going to buy them over there. You're not going to drive all the way back to Santa Cruz and then go shopping. Besides, the stores here will probably be closed.

Boy is that a problem with a long-term solution. Obviously, the Santa Cruz economy would have to totally change into one that offered higher wages here so that people don't leave town to shop.

At the same time, there's an additional problem -- the big companies that are here have to look elsewhere for qualified employees. In private conversations with local officials right after the chamber meeting, I learned that some of the biggest local employers -- like Plantronics -- are having trouble finding qualified employees.

And yet, earlier this week, at a community meeting of the Regional Occupational Program of the County Office of Education, officials brought up Santa Cruz County's 12 percent unemployment rate.

Obviously, there's a gap here somewhere. All signs point to education. 

What's being done locally? More than you might think.

NEXT: New ideas in education.