@E.J.: Oh, come on, EJ! If advocates would listen to the King and see DUI not in an isolated context but as one of many factors in highway deaths then they might develop a more comprehensive, effective strategy to police the roads. Not only that, but per mile driven, likely injury and fatality rates would decline.

If "zero tolerance" worked, we'd already be approaching the "zero death" mark!

You are in good stead with the other angry, irritated folks willing to pick-up pitchforks and go hunting for whatever straw man the authorities can conjure in their own bids to gain more power, pay and budgetary authority! Raising the age of consumption to "21" has done far more harm in America than good. People like you are angry enough not to care about the wholesale lock-up of so many young people and the effects on their future careers and lives. If you wish to lock-up drunk drivers, I applaud you! But zero tolerance efforts do more harm than good. Please check you personal rage at the door and allow the adults to continue speaking!

@Shalmaneser: I stand by my comments. "Most fatalities on our highways and waterways are not caused by drinking drivers ..."

In 2009, about 1/3 of the deaths were alcohol related; what about the other 2/3?

Do they NOT count?

WHEN will the neoliberals get past stoking hysteria for political gain, and get back in the business of reducing the carnage on the highways?

@Save our Republic: You are well aware of the "threat" of withholding federal transportation funds IF state leaders fail to implement the new rules; in the article, it was noted these rules, themselves, did not even originate in the U.S. but in foreign countries!

I think we place too much emphasis on DUI prevention at the expense of more pedestrian causes of injuries and fatalities; and I guess the reason we do so is because of the "sin factor" still firmly around the neck of "demon" alcohol!

A more reasonable and effective approach would punish behaviors in some sort of relation to causality.

The proposed standards and GA's present 0.08 standard for drivers and boaters are too low; lowering the standards will only enhance our robust and surging police state while lowering public confidence in law enforcement; and cause more highway deaths and not fewer.

Finally, a friend, loved-one, or any person killed on the roads is just as valuable, just as worthy and equally beloved as is someone injured or killed by a drunk driver. Unfortunately, MADD has long worked to gird media rhetoric and public psychology to suggest, somehow, that those who die because someone made a poor choice about alcohol are more worthy of public note, attention and sympathy. That is not the case, however; perhaps some on your side will have to get used to a new "equal?"

Shearer rightly notes one more high-profile attempt by UGA advocates to make "their system" more sustainable by re-building public confidence in UGA and higher education.

Efforts on campus, however, ought not be monopolized by folks promising the ever-elusive (but now the marketing-strategy-du-jour) "sustainability."

Instead, they ought realize lowered financial support for higher education is a direct result of a flattened U.S. economy and resulting lower revenues that can go towards UGA and public education efforts.

If they continue to support free trade agreements that place U.S. workers at a disadvantage; if they continue to admire, in a mirror, the most recent globalization "miracle;" and if they continue to imagine their own potential for great power and wealth -- bossing around the "uneducated" -- as leaders of a global technocratic elite; then nothing they can do or say is remotely sustainable for any of them; or any of us!

@E.J.: EJ, when indebted college graduates cannot find employment in appropriate (or, any) areas, public confidence in higher education is undermined. People, including myself, begin to think of it as a massive scam and rip-off!

First, it was never supposed to be for everyone; but that was back when people could be professors or farmers and no one ran-up his petard and took on airs.

If UGA scientists develop marketable ideas, technologies or products, they will be licensed and manufactured in low-wage states.

As prosperity in America, and other developed states, has declined, so has the prospects for higher investment in higher eduction.

If nothing is done to address outsourcing; (and, in sourcing of cheap illegal labor); and so-called "free" trade pacts and policies allowing the free flow of capital across borders; then higher education advocates will see less public confidence; and higher education, per se, may once again become the sole province of religious orders and private efforts.

An argument can certainly be made in line with your crude explanation; those employed in the financial sector -- which profits from globalization deals -- have seen a significant rise in numbers and profits. Some of our best talent, now, heads to Wall Street to "clean up!"

How does the story end? In America I think it ends when enough people wake up and realize the scam. Then they realize many if not most of our elected officials are in on it and bought off! Grassroots organization, including the Tea Party, may be the seeds for a counter-revolution that forces GA and the US to once again hear domestic constituencies and their native concerns.

@swhitney: Gave you a plus, as usual, but certainly do not smoke illegal substances if that is your implication!

Public higher education IS a luxury even within a so-called "developed" nation such as the U.S. Early on, community resources were directed at critical needs including food, shelter and healthcare. The reason we have "land grant" institutions, today, is that previous supporters could not contribute cash they did not have, they gave land, instead.

As you know, "higher education," per se, early on, was entirely the province of religious orders and private efforts. Are we better off if we simply spend more public dollars on higher education? No! Not unless those funds are expended in ways that boost productivity and effectiveness.

As Zell Miller recently pointed-out, education spending in GA topped-out during the 1950s; what he failed to mention was that that spending was a byproduct of a robust economy that generated excessive revenues that could be given over to higher ed advocates. The idea, now, that in hard economic times government should plow even more revenues into higher education as a way to improve our economy is false, preposterous, and self-serving.

Funding for higher education in GA rises and falls based on the relative prosperity of our citizens. Likely, after the great rise in revenues during the housing bubble, funding will remain flat or significantly lower for many years. I do note, as well, for the record, that critics of government cutbacks have politicized their rhetoric and pointed fingers, falsely, at state house republicans. Whether you'll choose to admit that or not is your business.

Successful "development" efforts in recent years targeting private and public patrons are set to become more difficult dependent on the relative prosperity. There simply are more IMPORTANT needs in society today than higher education; this was always the case.

Public education advocates are foolish to arrogantly demand more support; they have forgotten the very long, hard road needed to build public support in the beginning. They've forgotten how to sacrifice for the greater good; how to assume low public profiles; and to live low and humbly; they've forgotten the great privilege, and high honor that it is to attend or to work in a public institution of higher education!

@gman129: Yes, they should not be engaged in criminal conduct; but law enforcement efforts should re-prioritize their efforts to go after those who cause the most harm.

Yeah, I know Mangum can't go after Goldman Sachs or Wall Street leaders, so that was just a little sarcasm.

BUT clearly, the economic collapse and unemployment crisis were caused by government and private officials who bought their way out of punishment. Some of the people arrested at the flea market may be victims of a much larger and much worse crime.

Moorhead's chief task is to drive down the costs of education by re prioritizing spending; retrenchment is fast headed for U.GA. -- and increased private giving will make little difference.

In the beginning, capable bright individuals happily worked even given sparse compensation; they weren't attracted by power, the spotlight, or corporate pay; They worked almost for free and felt lucky, fortunate and privileged to have the high honor of working to build a Georgia institution for higher learning; such modest individuals de-emphasized individual diversity, and did not hold up their "difference" as some sort of trophy, but instead joined efforts with an eye to a singular goal;

Students, were then, away from the world of work and on special missions; faculty volunteers coached sports teams to give students diversions from their studies.

Economic circumstance, present blue skies only temporary, will wash-out the proud, the self-deluded, and the self-serving; and set UGA back on course. Simply spending more, only, was a self-serving delusion; clearly the Regents outsmarted themselves.

Ironically, we have plenty of law enforcement resources to go out and arrest a bunch of poor Americans trying to scratch out a living but can't arrest a single soul on Wall Street which is where the economic calamity was originated! When Mangum sends her task force to China and arrests some Chinese or sends the men with guns over to the Fed or over to Goldman Sachs, then the King will consider voting for her re-election.

An enterprising journalist could easily measure the way compensation for various University employees has changed over time, and that would graphically show the way priorities have changed in our society. Personally, I think the change is a bad one.

Look at the pay of the U.GA. President, head coach, and full professor v. time; then graph the results from the founding and bring them forward to today; adjust for inflation, and voila!

While politically popular, zero tolerance efforts aimed at DUI likely result in more highway deaths and not fewer. Most fatalities on our highways and waterways are not caused by drinking drivers but by more pedestrian affairs like texting, speeding, and what not.

STILL, the "sin" factor surrounding alcohol is the button self-interested policy-makers push whenever desirous of larger budgets or more power.

AS IS, NHTSA blackmailed all the states to enforce its past edicts regarding DUI legislation, and now they are ready to install a globalized regime of rules coming from non-elected global elites who have no domestic constituencies.

A better approach would end Washington's extortionist tactics, and allow the 50 states to form and enforce the most appropriate rules. Fines and punishments ought to comprehensively target all rule violations in a way that raised or lowered punishments in line with the link between the behavior and crashes and highway deaths.

Because most highway deaths are not linked to drinking, singling out DUI for the most severe punishments means other unsafe behaviors get off lightly; this is a recipe for more highway deaths, not fewer.

Since I will be graduating from UGA in a year, it makes you question whether a university education is always necessary.

We've read stories, recently, about how some employers require applicants to possess college degrees regardless of whether they need the credential to do the job they are hired to do. THEN, when employers have many fewer jobs than they do applicants, they are likely to "screen" lists and pare down applicants and sometimes to use college degrees to do so.

In America, and to an extent across the globe, the problem of unemployment is firmly linked to policies on trade, labor and capital flows; as long as China can artificially devalue currencies, hijack western manufacturing "know how;" and as long as our worldly technocratic leaders stand by and allow this; likely moves to devalue college education will continue.

For instance, in a recent public announcement Gov. Zell Miller noted that spending on education in GA topped-out during the Saunders administration of the 1950s; then, the state invested nearly 53 percent of all revenues to fund education.

Even though Miller's point was an attempt to get the state to throw more money at education, the real point was that the robust GA economy of the 1950s -- when many more were employed in manufacturing and agricultrual production -- was the engine that drove education investment.

If anything, the U.S.'s economy is stuck in reverse and policy-makers continue to flood labor markets with cheap, often illegal workers; we've shipped so many jobs overseas our real government revenues are declining and not rising; and our debts continue to mount. Officially, policy-makers believe we'll be "ok" if we can stoke another credit bubble that gooses mass consumerism. In fact, unless they re-consider policies on the matters, mentioned above, the long-term prognosis for education investment is poor, and set for a long-term, perhaps permanent, decline.

The Regent's continue to bid-up prices for tuition and invest on the periphery of education in things like sports programs and new buildings; likely they will not reconsider their beliefs or the impact on policy-making. They have already begun to hollow-out the system by changing the names of institutions and arguing for mergers. In a nut shell, they are attempting to raise enrollments at some colleges and Universities by lessening support for smaller colleges; they are probing alumni support for institutions and either seeking to destroy that support -- EG, by renaming MCG -- or, when support is relatively weak, looting the institutions and sending their resources elsewhere.

Higher learning, of course, is for those who seek it; they are given a special privilege in that they are relieved from their duty to enter the formal workforce while they continue higher studies. Self-interested bureaucrats, however, look at college students as cash cows: They hype the benefits of college even while they reduce support for faculty compensation. They use grand, elaborate public relations operations to paint themselves as important corporate titans who, if compensated appropriately and given enough power, can spread economic prosperity far and wide across the state.

The state of education in GA -- particularly in the public system -- remains at low knell and vulnerable to collapse largely due to mismanagement by the Regents and lack of public scrutiny. You very well ought question the value of your degree and know in that questioning you, at least, are one of the few asking the right questions.

@E.J.: Well ... keep in mind even Obama now calls it "Obamacare!" Don't forget the Obama phones, either! I think "Obummer" is the logical next step in labeling things we don't like and don't support!

In truth, however, policy-makers on both sides are hunting new revenues; you see bipartisan support for "taxing the internet."

The best time to raise taxes, however, is when the economy is in good shape; the worst time when its bad. Whether or not it's "good" or "bad" to balance spending and revenues in a recession is a moot point; but sometimes the real weapon at hand is to make spending more effective and productive. Sequestration, counter-intuitively, already put real heat on aviation authorities to better spend revenues. Government stimulative efforts can boost employment even as they signal Depression;

I expect much closer scrutiny of social spending as the economy recovers; that could temper the large outlays and give fiscal planners breathing room.

With regard to immigration proposals, it remains to be seen whether or not it produces more labor surpluses and social spending outlays at the worst possible time. Again, both Republican and Democratic administrations have backed loose immigration rules because, they say, they are tender-hearted and sympathetic folks. In REALITY, backers of in-sourcing cheap foreign laborer are capital owners looking for higher returns; if they can get a Bangladeshi computer programmer through on the A1N1 visa admit, then they can cut wage costs, and boost profitability; that means a better return on the capital investment.

The King, foolishly, likes part of the "special admit" rules; he imagines they'll finally bring to the American "educated class" what the rest of us have known for years! This will lead to fewer dollars invested in liberal higher education; and fewer jobs and more job stress for the liberals nested there! (EG, if Apple hires a Bangladeshi - educated programmer, demand for U.S. higher ed in that subject area falls; and so do state subsidies and all the rest!) Only THEN, perhaps, with the liberal folks finally see that "free" immigration is a hateful and harmful policy both for working people; and for those toting around a piece of paper as proof of their smartness!

Otherwise, many jobs in America today have had wages leveraged down by massive foreign labor influxes: carpet in Dalton; chicken in Athens and Gainesville; Vidalia onion growers; truck farmers; meat packers in Iowa and Alberta, CA; etc.

Their pickle? Low pay and working conditions necessitated by foreign competition (free trade) means they can only get by by using very cheap foreign labor! If they don't have it, they'll get the U.S. Congress and President to provide it for them!

Going forward it looks as if in the U.S. and other states, the free movement of labor will mean wages go down and economic opportunity will decline for all by the elites;

Globalization Agenda:

Free trade; even trade agreements that favor developing country laborers before those in "wealthy" developed nations;

Free flow of capital across borders;

Free flow of labor across borders

It's a recipe for more of what we've experienced for the last several years; you see our policy-makers behind the tenets for one reason; but global elitists push the agenda for personal, and not public reasons.

THEN, amidst the glitz and glamor; and fierce debates and finger pointing: Global elites get exactly what they want. Others, chip in to their "returns" by working like slaves or collecting unemployment; disability; or just cashing in their chips and passing into the dark night!

Mexicans working feverishly into the dark in Vidalia experience the same thing Americans and people around the globe are feeling: A global transformation of the relationship between capital and labor.

New "slave" immigrants are promised their freedom in exchange for their hard work; but what they really get is slavery, instead. No where in the debate on immigration, now, is the truth told. Mexican immigrants think their separatist status can only better their lives; but the global arbiters will have none of that! The media, of course, works tirelessly to advance the global agenda: those opposing free immigration are said to be white supremacists, etc.; anyone and anything opposing the agenda is tarred and feathered. How ironic that the Fourth Estate now has sided against its own interests; and many within are all lost in their supposed "liberal enlightenment" thinking this is the 1960s and their fighting for civil rights; sexual liberation; and the right to smoke dope from coast to coast! FAIL!

Do the math, and tell me which side is "winning!"

PS: EJ, I always give you "pluses" and have noticed that others always give you negatives. What's going on? How did you make some folks that angry! Tell me your secret, my positives are going up; and that might mean I'm no longer fit to rule! I need to know how to get huge negatives, like that guy who got like 99 negative ratings!

@Shalmaneser: You are prejudiced against "the vote," apparently. It's much better than a gun in changing government; and it's a right and privilege many around the world do not have.

Ok, ok.

It tastes like chicken!

@mcdawg: David Stockman, as you know, was the official heretic in the Reagan administration; if one links our current fiscal imbalance and debt directly to "supply side economics" and deficit spending, then they ought to read everything the man has written: He was right!

Large tax cuts + higher government spending = Unsustainable deficits, debt.

Almost all of our political leaders, claim they will re-balance spending and revenue; but when they have the chance to do so, they always chicken out.

Didn't feel the Franklin quote at the end really meshed with the rest of it; but I'm an anonymous commentator so that doesn't matter.

We need in America today expanding labor markets that cause employers -- and not employees -- to have to "hunt" labor. We've recreated many of the features of 1886 America economy -- and relationship, then, between capital and labor -- and we've done it mostly on purpose; and at the behest of supposedly wise leaders.

Law firms, and other employers screen resumes for college educations even when they know the jobs don't require it; employers have the upper hand, and use this to exploit workers.

And, yes, the public should well remember that suppression of civil liberties is a tried and true method for dealing with dissent. In some ways, though, the media in Athens, and elsewhere, has launched a helpful critique of anti-labor policies and globalization; it will get better, but not on its own! Keep up the good rants, Ed, and continue to educate the public about gun control: "Hold it straight and steady!"

@rcbljc: At least the Regents support him; though some wording in the news item above suggests a pull-back;

Clearly, he is functioning as a patsy, now, for ill intentioned moves by the Regents. He is caught in a big fight that was set in motion by the Regents, themselves. Likely they need his thick hide to protect them from public criticism!

Mismanagement by the Regents, even amid many improvements at UGA and other institutions, may have hurt the productivity and effectiveness of higher education; what an awful, awful mess!

As a matter of fact, our own former Gov. Sonny Perdue was one of the ringleaders in this fantasy that even more rigorous standards for the entire nation would make our schools perform better.

I'd argue you've omitted, perhaps purposefully, the major backing for "education reform:" Policy-makers believe resources thrown at education might refurbish American competitiveness!

Again, I certainly support an effective system of education.

However, very clearly, no reform in education can rebuild U.S. economic competitiveness until and unless policy-makers amend the rules on trade and capital and labor flows.* Unfortunately, in America, our schools are in the cross-hairs when more sundry policies elsewhere have place our economy on a fast-track towards "developing" status.

I like the idea about supplements; paying regular education teachers MORE does indeed improve education; locally, CCSD could cut costs and provide these payments beyond what the state is already paying. They haven't done it, locally, because they've done a poor job managing; spent too much on new buildings and administrators; and don't have access to the immense property tax wealth we see in counties such as Gwinnett.

Oh, and one more thing! Critics of flagging public support for education need to realize when economies falter, so do their revenues; re-building the economy in Athens -- not with another unsustainable bubble but with robust manufacturing, transportation, and production facilities -- would do the most to help boost government revenues; some of that increased revenue would find its way to the school house.

*Many critics of reform, themselves, are major beneficiaries of the latest round of globalization; but part and parcel of that transformation means fewer and not more dollars available for education. Even if some enjoy high incomes, the wage gap and flatter wages for the majority can only mean we have less money for schools; throw in all the former bad policies, rules, unfunded mandates, and you have the circus we see today: You are HERE!

@Millionexus: Hat tip for recreating something that I do not recall ever saying; where did you get that?

I do go back and edit plenty of my comments mostly to make them less abrasive and, I think, more compelling.

As of right now, I am thinking you failed to respond, effectively, to my comments in the former post because it's hard to argue with the truth!

Liberals and conservatives are losing an excellent opportunity to put the spotlight on our failing mental health system. Ask an sheriff in GA, and likely he ("her" in Jackson county) will tell you many of their resources are tied-up dealing with mentally ill individuals. In the mass shootings, you may find a similar link.

It's also a chance, once again, to bash Reagan as his administration seems to be linked to many of the cuts that put the mentally ill back on the streets; Clinton's welfare reform, as well, made sure these same individuals -- many of whom were homeless -- could no longer receive food stamps! (This policy has changed but only because the economy fell apart!) Further more, you could look back at IDEA and NCLB and decide for yourself whether or not "mainstreaming" is, in fact, always the best placement.

So far, in the gun debate, I believe "dumb," has met "dumber." We need to look back, however, and question theories and practices relevant to how we treat the mentally ill; are they safe?; are we safe?

Finally, one can assume, as well, that the flagging economy has taken a bad situation; and made it worse. Time is of the essence.

We may see a shift, now, in the U.S. view that precludes "regime change" in Syria.

This targeting of despots may create more harm than good; have we forgotten abandoned U.S. weapons in Afghanistan were used against American interests?

The roots of conflict, here, and elsewhere may be mostly economic; they may be fallout from the global contraction; and our modern conceit about "control and command."

As economies have fallen, here in America, and around the globe, strife between separate ethnic, religious, and other "different" peoples, families, clans and tribes has taken off. The stakes are much higher as economic opportunity has become more limited; stressed out folks more likely to attack.

Time to call it off, and tell banksters we've decided their profits are not more important than peoples' lives;

I suspect that this cheap shot is less about any homophobia than it is about a fear of the validity of the opinions expressed by John Maynard Keynes

I will certainly credit the ABH for highlighting the controversy.

People, though, do NOT consider the "long run," at their peril.

From wiki, here's another Keynes quote that seems to suggest we ought favor instant gratification (quick mitigation of the effects of ill economies) before a more measured approach on financial policy; it further reflects the conceit of economists and policy-makers who believe, now, they can, themselves, turn water into wine. (Do they have it in Japan, now; the EU, America?!)

The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.

Federal Reserve officials have confirmed their intents to keep pumping money into the economy; you have similar views in Japan and building in the EU.

THEN, the argument is over; and we get to see and experience which body of knowledge was correct.

Of course, everyone, in their own personal economies, can mostly decide for themselves; they'll call you a "gold bug," or hoarder, or worse!

More of the bitter fruit from separatist factions operating to take over public institutions, I would guess.

@Millionexus: Even the Bill of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution. But let's play fair and go through that process rather than use underhanded tactics to achieve the same thing. Keep in mind, some argue and believe it is the Constitution that serves to distinguish the U.S. from more tyrannical (and more unstable and prone to revolution and civil war) states. I think their argument is correct.

I suspect some people confuse "Leaders freely and democratically elected by citizens whose opinions differ from my own" with "Leaders who are horrible tyrants" and treat the former like the latter.

@Shalmaneser: Yes, and that confusion is encouraged and abetted by liberal pollsters trying to construct a conservative straw man.

Ironically, our media panned grassroots Tea Party movements as merely racists and white supremacists. Their sin? They wanted to VOTE to change government so that it would favor more sustainable fiscal policy!