Base salary correction...

Neopolitan's base salary is higher than I noted before:  to the tune of $ 570,000 base salary, plus moving expenses at $ 142k.

De-Troit is officially bankrupt

That fact is not the surprise. Nor is the 80 billion a thought. We knew this all along: no tax base, no significant business, poor houses, poor schools.

And yet Gov. Synder comes out to blame others over the last 80 years. Yes, let's talk about the past. You have had three years to do something. You appointed one of your yoyos to run the city. And now the bankruptcy. Don't get historical now; you knew about the problems years ago. All you could do is appoint your yoyo.

That is not problem solving; that is blaming others; that is not leadership.

More on Napolitano... compensation.

Now a week later we get the news about her compensation...The suggestion was that she would receive a salary like at Homeland:  200k a year, which seems fair for a person of her stature but without any experience in academia.

Today we hear the compensation is more like 500k, plus a moving allowance of 142k. Who says the UCs are broke?  They have plenty of money to hire someone who has no experience.

Who is the mastermind behind these decisions? Where does Gov. Brown stand on these unfortunate and misguided decisions?

Final comment on UC

So the UC system has by-passed academics and chosen someone with prominence but a nontraditional candidate.  IF we oppose her, we are against women.

Why not choose someone who already knows the issues and key players?
The regents ignore the huge learning curve of the system. This move reminds of when San Diego schools hired a military man to run public schools. We needed a change of paradigm, the logic went.

Now the UCs bring in someone who does have experience with complex systems but not academia or accreditation. She may be a good pick for Phoenix but not the complex academic world of the UCs. What is the change of paradigm?

My first question is always:  where is the job description? I fear there isn't one. This is an affront to the profession, that at certain levels qualifications do not matter; no input is needed from professions; there is also a lack of transparency surrounding the selection. I dare say electing the last pope was more transparent than the UC's process.  So much for living in CA and being part of the democratic process.

Janet Napolitano to Pres. of UC system...

The appointment of Nepolitano to UC chief raises questions. First, the selection process. Why would the regents, who are political appointees, be permitted to pick? Second, why pick a pol? I thought the days of picking pols or ex military types to lead schools was over. Just as with military personnel, why are pols good picks to lead schools?  The suggestion was she has reach in Washington and will make a good fund raiser. She is the first woman to lead UC, so bringing in the female funds and attention may be helpful.

One other connection was that Neopolitano was the first female valedictorian from Santa Clara U. The problem is it is not even a UC school. Strange logic.

The last point is the secretive nature of the selection. No one seemed to know she was a candidate. I don't know if she even knew. Strange part of UC system, was is supposed to be the beacon of shared governance and the democratic process.

Let's also be open about sexuality. The perception is she is a member of the LGBT community. Is that part of the vote?

I have single handedly resurrected Palomino Molero from the dead of books....

Vargas Llosa's detective novel set in 1950s Peru is not simply about the power of love or corruption but of the power of digression. While it fails as a who dunnit mystery, it excels in the art of digression. At the end of each chapter action, conclusion, and knowledge are put off until the next chapter and a change of scene. The new part of the investigation puts off any conclusion, which in turn are delayed at the end of that chapter, and so on. Even the last chapter, when Silva and Lituma are "reassigned" or transferred, the reader is unsure who is going where. Thus, the action is put off or delayed. All that is left is the present knowledge and lots of conspiracy theories about what the big guys did... when in truth it is all about our local knowledge, memory, and the stories we return to. Thus while Lituma and Silva know who killed who, they cannot convince the town because the police don't share a complete story. They cannot digress any further and therefore cannot finish the story. When the digressions are over, there is no story and no resolution. Thus the murder, instead of leading to resolution is cause of more conspiracy theories. The town comes together at the bar restaurant but only to gossip about the murder, make fun of Silva's lack of macho, and not to know about the soliloquy of the involuntary transfer of the local "guardia civil."

Why the Philosopher Kings do not want to rule...

So why not let the best qualified philosopher kings rule the country, at least as an experiment? What is Plato's view?  The world is perhaps not rational enough for the people to accept the decisions of the philosopher kings. It would be too difficult for the people to accept (I believe this was CDC Reeve's view back in the day). MacIntyre suggests that different cultures have competing views of what is rational.... What one culture considers rational is not what another believes.

From my experience living on the Mexican border for many years, this is all but "crystal clear" to me: What the US considers rational is not what Mexico considers rational--from border talk, immigration, to food, to parties... absolutely no agreement.

Let's return to the discussion about the cave. According to Plato, when the PK tells the masses that what they think is knowledge is just opinion and nonsense, they get angry. To use the cave analogy, the shadows from the fire reflected on the walls of the cave are not knowledge. What the media projects as truth today is not.

Now turn to cable news. How would they feel if the people knew their news was merely rumor and gossip? Yet, the people would not support systematic investigation into the truth about issues like health care and gun violence.

Perhaps the PKs do not want to rule because the truth is more hairy than shadows on the cave wall. The issue becomes an question of epistemology--can we know the truth clearly enough to convince people of its veracity?