There's a huge debate right now with college presidents from over 100 colleges calling on lawmakers to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18 in an effort to curb binge-drinking. Obviously, this had riled the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who argue that lowering the drinking age would therefore increase the number of drunk drivers and risk of drunk driving, which is pretty much the thing that they are against (being mothers and all).
There are several pros and cons to the debate - so here's my two cents.
Right off the bat, I'd like to make it clear that whatever the risks and consequences, I believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. I'm not entirely in favor of eliminating the drinking age limit completely, mostly because there are other age limits that need to be removed first. The pessimist in me says that "if teenagers at 14 are stupid enough to be having sex (with each other or older people), then they should be considered stupid enough to be allowed to ruin their lives in all other ways, like marriage, drinking, smoking and anything else that would shame your family and hopefully lead to an early death." The optimist in me says that "the maturity and intelligence curves with today's youth are so much different than they were even when I was a teenager that it makes sense to let them experience other aspects of adulthood at an earlier age."
And believe me, it's difficult for the optimist in me to come up with such a coherent thought when the pessimist in me is peeing on his shoes and laughing maniacally.
My problem with this story and the debate points made within is that the logic simply isn't there for most of it. Shocking, I know, but when you have crazy people fervently arguing their side of the argument as pure gospel - something's going to be wrong with the logic at some point. Don't worry, I'll try and poke fun of BOTH sides of the crazy line, despite the fact that I am biased towards one hopeful result.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. Now, this is logic I can actually agree with. If you increase the legality of something, you increase the chances that someone will do it, and therefore increase the chances that someone will do it and then drive a car. Or while driving a car. Which tends to lead to more results like "fatal car crashes". Point goes to MADD.
Richard Brodhead, president of Duke said that the current law "pushes drinking into hiding, heightening its risks, including risks from drunken driving, and it prevents us from addressing drinking with students as an issue of responsible choice." This is logic I can mostly agree with. Universities really can't teach students under 21 about RESPONSIBLE drinking because they're not old enough to drink (even though everyone admits that they do). I agree that when something is illegal, it has to go into hiding in order to stay alive, and that the less oversight there is, the more risky it becomes. If bungee-jumping were suddenly outlawed, there'd still be people doing it but it would be much harder to enforce safety and responsibility and it's likely that more bungee-jumping-related deaths would be a result. Point goes to the university presidents.
Meanwhile, MADD urges parents to think carefully about safety at colleges whose presidents have signed on. "It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses." Okay, this logic I completely disagree with. MADD makes it sound like the presidents of universities who are in favor of this would somehow stop caring about the effects of alcohol on students and would be throwing keggers to get a point across. Duke released a statement from the president that alcohol is still illegal if you're under 21 and the university is obliged to uphold the law - but think about it. Wouldn't you think they'd crack down HARDER? Every time they document a case of underage binge drinking, they get to rack up another point on the "told ya so" meter that proves their point - wouldn't that logically mean they'd be busting people left and right to raise those numbers?? No point for MADD.
A lower drinking age could lead to less binge drinking, experts say, since 18- to 20-year-olds won't have to imbibe surreptitiously. This, I just don't wholeheartedly believe. You have to take into account the various situations that lead to "binge-drinking" and it's just not all underground. Most instances I can think of are parties. Some are underground parties, yes, but binge drinking happens just as much at the public parties. It's a little bit more secretive at the public parties, but it happens there. Even if the party hosts are doing a full ID check, marking off hands and having bartenders ACTUALLY check hands before issuing drinks - binge drinking will still occur with underaged partiers. The hosts are not equipped to check validity of IDs. The partier may alter the hand mark. The partier can get a supply of booze from a legal-age friend (which is how most booze gets to the underaged). The fact is - if you WANT to binge-drink, you're GOING to binge-drink. Removing the obstacles isn't likely to convince people to NOT binge-drink; it would only deter those who SPECIFICALLY binge-drink because it's illegal and they like breaking the law or something. No point for the university presidents.
What it all boils down to is that lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 won't solve the binge-drinking problem on its own. What it WILL do is open the doors for the universities to counsel students about responsible drinking and hopefully reduce binge-drinking in that manner. However, this also means the university can regulate drinking at parties with more scrutiny. Odds are that this change would create a rise in the number of parties, which will create a demand by the universities to limit the number of allowed parties, which will drive the partying underground instead of the alcohol.
Again, people binge on alcohol because they have a reason to. The reasons are probably stupid or something that a therapist should be handling instead of Captain Morgan, but the list of reasons probably has nothing to do with it being legal or not. The binge-drinkers that would be counseled out of the binge-drinking habit would probably be offset by the number of binge-drinkers who always wanted to be binge-drinkers but had that specific obstacle of illegality in the way all this time and never had the means to bypass it before it became legal.
Even so, the U.S. has the oldest drinking age in the world. Most countries allow drinking at 18. Some at 16. Some don't even have a limit at all! We've already admitted that at age 18, you can sign up for the military (to get shipped off to a country where to don't have to be 21 to drink), vote in general elections (to vote to make the drinking age 18), enter into a legally-binding contract (which often has the stipulation of making sure you're not drunk before you sign) and get married (probably the #1 reason why married men drink, if they're 21). It makes sense that the drinking age should be 18, if not lower.
What really irks me about this whole thing is that the university presidents are the ones rallying to lower the drinking age to 18 - not the general public or anything. They're doing it for the expressed purpose of reducing binge-drinking in their universities. Frankly, the number of 18-to-20-year-olds in college is such a small fraction of the 18-to-20-year-old population in general in the United States. It's NICE that we have some seemingly-responsible adults backing up the arguments to lower the drinking age, but that's not going to win the war.
The final point of the match has to go to the university presidents, because part of their campaign is supposedly going to be newspaper ads in the "public phase" - which is exactly what needs to happen if we want to make this law actually change.
What do you think? Are you picking a side in the debate? Do you think my points were awarded fairly? Does your wife make you want to drink heavily? Leave a comment and join the debate!!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
Showing posts with label college. Show all posts
Showing posts with label college. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
No Illegal Immigrants in NC Community Colleges
(You can also view this post at Associated Content!)
A 1982 Supreme Court ruling says that illegal immigrant children are entitled to an education in the public U.S. system through high school. Somehow people got it in their minds that this automatically meant that illegal immigrants are welcome in public community colleges and state universities as well.
In North Carolina, the state attorney general has passed down new guidelines to all 58 of the state's community colleges barring the enrollment of illegal immigrants. The new rules go into effect on Tuesday. Students who are illegally in the United States and will be graduating from high school this month (after leeching from the public school system for numerous years) will no longer be admitted into North Carolina community colleges.
These guidelines do not effect the 16 public universities located in North Carolina, so those are still legal options for the illegal immigrants - for now.
Of course, Hispanic advocacy groups are up in arms and outraged. This is the first decision of its kind, which means that it will likely be challenged in court after the inevitable parade of protests and petitions.
As for those who are undocumented but have received their acceptance letters before the cutoff date of Tuesday, they will still be allowed to attend the community college. The summer session will be starting in just a few short weeks.
As for the 16 public universities that will still accept illegal immigrants, many undocumented prospective students are complaining that they can't afford the out-of-state tuition bills (since they obviously don't have legal residence in the state or the United States in general) and are not eligible for state or federal financial aid (since they obviously don't deserve to leech any more of the government's money after so many years of federally-allowed public school attendance).
So, why don't undocumented students apply for citizenship? Some say its a lengthy and expensive process.
You know what else is supposed to be a lengthy and expensive process? COLLEGE! If you can't hack the tedium and annoyance and price of going through the process to be a legal citizen, why should you deserve the right to attend the tedium and annoyance and price of higher education?
(1) Anti-illegal-immigration groups argue that illegal immigrants are stealing U.S. jobs from legal American citizens.
(2) Pro-illegal-immigration groups argue that most illegal immigrants are doing jobs that most Americans don't want to do in the first place, like picking fruit and janitorial services and menial tasks.
If (2) is true, then why would illegal immigrants need higher education? The only reason for getting higher education (other than "bettering yourself") is to get a better job that is higher up on the corporate ladder - jobs that legal American citizens are already struggling to fight for in the marketplace today.
This just proves that (2) is false and (1) is true.
I just don't see any possible other explanation. It's probably because I'm biased against illegal immigration, but look at the logic. The ONLY reason why you go to college or basically any higher education than high school - is to get a better job with better pay. And the definition of "better job" is almost certainly the subset of jobs that are NOT these "degrading" jobs to which American citizens would supposedly turn up their noses. Which means that illegal immigrants want to take away jobs from American citizens.
Q.E.D.!
I think that it's frankly a brilliant idea on North Carolina's part, and that it needs to take effect in the public universities as well and then spread to the other states. They are totally allowed to do so, given that the Supreme Court only mandates allowing criminal illegal immigrants into our public schools until high school.
I want to see the looks on protesters' faces when their tirades against such laws are faced against this plain and simple argument. And for those of you who, like me, are attacked with the "they're only taking away jobs Americans don't want to do" argument over and over, now you have this bit of weaponry in your arsenal.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(The article about the decision)
Read more!
A 1982 Supreme Court ruling says that illegal immigrant children are entitled to an education in the public U.S. system through high school. Somehow people got it in their minds that this automatically meant that illegal immigrants are welcome in public community colleges and state universities as well.
In North Carolina, the state attorney general has passed down new guidelines to all 58 of the state's community colleges barring the enrollment of illegal immigrants. The new rules go into effect on Tuesday. Students who are illegally in the United States and will be graduating from high school this month (after leeching from the public school system for numerous years) will no longer be admitted into North Carolina community colleges.
These guidelines do not effect the 16 public universities located in North Carolina, so those are still legal options for the illegal immigrants - for now.
Of course, Hispanic advocacy groups are up in arms and outraged. This is the first decision of its kind, which means that it will likely be challenged in court after the inevitable parade of protests and petitions.
As for those who are undocumented but have received their acceptance letters before the cutoff date of Tuesday, they will still be allowed to attend the community college. The summer session will be starting in just a few short weeks.
As for the 16 public universities that will still accept illegal immigrants, many undocumented prospective students are complaining that they can't afford the out-of-state tuition bills (since they obviously don't have legal residence in the state or the United States in general) and are not eligible for state or federal financial aid (since they obviously don't deserve to leech any more of the government's money after so many years of federally-allowed public school attendance).
So, why don't undocumented students apply for citizenship? Some say its a lengthy and expensive process.
You know what else is supposed to be a lengthy and expensive process? COLLEGE! If you can't hack the tedium and annoyance and price of going through the process to be a legal citizen, why should you deserve the right to attend the tedium and annoyance and price of higher education?
(1) Anti-illegal-immigration groups argue that illegal immigrants are stealing U.S. jobs from legal American citizens.
(2) Pro-illegal-immigration groups argue that most illegal immigrants are doing jobs that most Americans don't want to do in the first place, like picking fruit and janitorial services and menial tasks.
If (2) is true, then why would illegal immigrants need higher education? The only reason for getting higher education (other than "bettering yourself") is to get a better job that is higher up on the corporate ladder - jobs that legal American citizens are already struggling to fight for in the marketplace today.
This just proves that (2) is false and (1) is true.
I just don't see any possible other explanation. It's probably because I'm biased against illegal immigration, but look at the logic. The ONLY reason why you go to college or basically any higher education than high school - is to get a better job with better pay. And the definition of "better job" is almost certainly the subset of jobs that are NOT these "degrading" jobs to which American citizens would supposedly turn up their noses. Which means that illegal immigrants want to take away jobs from American citizens.
Q.E.D.!
I think that it's frankly a brilliant idea on North Carolina's part, and that it needs to take effect in the public universities as well and then spread to the other states. They are totally allowed to do so, given that the Supreme Court only mandates allowing criminal illegal immigrants into our public schools until high school.
I want to see the looks on protesters' faces when their tirades against such laws are faced against this plain and simple argument. And for those of you who, like me, are attacked with the "they're only taking away jobs Americans don't want to do" argument over and over, now you have this bit of weaponry in your arsenal.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(The article about the decision)
Read more!
Friday, October 12, 2007
Noose Nuisance
So apparently the new "fad" for the news world and idiots around the country is the noose. The incident in Jena apparently was the spark that ignited the moronic cavalcade of noose-related stories popping up, even though the Jena 6 incident really had nothing to do with a noose.
Yes, earlier that year, three white kids hung nooses from trees and were unfairly let off with a warning.
Nothing to do with the fact that six black kids beat up a white kid and jailarity ensued and then Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton got in the mix. And whenever those two start speaking out, they fan the flames of hatred as well. I don't like to think of myself as a bigot or a racist - but when those two start with their claptrap and outcries and demands, I have to admit that my personal view of their race diminishes proportionately with the size of the ruckus they're creating.
Not surprisingly, others must feel the same way I do (well, maybe a hundredfold worse, since I'd never do anything that a jury would consider a "hate crime" against a race) - because nooses are popping up all over the news stories now. Let's take a quick look:
Yes, you probably heard about the professor who had a noose put on her door.
Get a bunch of college liberals riled up, and the media won't be too far behind. Hilariously enough (if you can find humor in the situation, and I apparently can) - the professor, Madonna Constantine, wasn't even around that day. Another professor found it on Constantine's door, and went to find Constantine's research partner. They went and found security, and eventually called the professor so she wouldn't be startled the next time she went to work.
The uproar caused a march from Teachers College (the education grad school branch of Columbia University) down to the main Columbia campus, and a quote from one of the marchers just kind of made me angry and laugh at the same time.
"Teachers College student Nicole Woodard told them she wasn't surprised by the noose incident because she believes the college lacks racial diversity. "When I walk into a class of 100 students and can count on my fingers how many look like me, that's a problem," said Woodard, who is black. Teachers College, which was founded in 1887 and is the nation's largest grad school for education, has a student body that is 12% black, 11% Asian-American and 7% Hispanic."
Putting those sentences together makes it look like Woodard has twelve fingers. And if the statistics are trying to suggest that the school is indeed not diverse (or "racially homogenized"), I hope that people take into account the fact that it's a grad school for education majors. There are fewer minority teachers than ever, both in the major while trying to get their teaching certification, and in the profession - since there's a higher rate of minorities failing the teaching exams than white students.
They're actually considering "affirmative action" to get TEACHERS rather than STUDENTS into the schools.
But I digress, let's move on to a lesser-known news story involving a noose:
While working on the completion of a new Home Depot store in Illinois, a construction worker saw a noose made of a foam packaging material hanging in the garden center area.
He decided not to return to work at the store, for safety reasons, and nobody reported the incident until the following Monday, since during the weekend a racial slur had been spraypainted inside the store by vandals.
And let's not forget the student who has since apologized for his actions:
The high-schooler drove around the parking lot of his high school with a noose hanging from his rear-view mirror and a Confederate flag hanging inside his vehicle.
It's still not known if he was suspended or expelled from his school - he hasn't been there since his arrest for disorderly conduct. He has since made a public apology and asked for forgiveness, which has currently been widely accepted by those he offended.
So what does all this mean?
Frankly, I think it means that too many people are giving this symbol way too much power over their lives and emotions.
It's just another example of words and symbols and ideas being STOLEN by racial groups. They get to claim it as their own, it belongs to nobody else. They're the only ones who can use it in a non-threatening manner, and they're the only ones who get to feel threatened by it. Anything else is "racism" to them.
Back in the day, my fraternity was the victim of this "stolen symbol syndrome" - we hosted a party and the flier had the word "ghetto" on it. The party was a costume party and you can undoubtedly guess the theme. While I had little problem with the fact that a few select individuals felt offended by the nature or theme of the party, I was dismayed and offended to hear that a few black females were offended by our use of the word "ghetto" and wrote a formal complaint to the college administration. They claimed it was THEIR WORD and we weren't allowed to use it, especially in such a manner, because it offended them.
I won't go into the many many logical arguments of how the word itself is NOT something entirely owned by African-Americans - I'm pretty sure I've done that before. What I will go into is how it relates to black people and nooses. Just like the whole "ghetto" story, I will admit that for a period of time, nooses were used in lynchings directed at black people, predominantly in the South. However, practically in the same breath, people should be reminded that it wasn't JUST black people who were the victims of lynchings. And then in the NEXT breath, people should be reminded that the noose is a symbol of death - of unbiased and impartial death.
Unless every suicide in the history of mankind that involved a noose was committed by a black person - which it certainly wasn't - there should not be this immediate decision that any noose you view is an attack on that race. Are you seriously going to try and convince me that the hanging of Saddam Hussein was offensive to black people because "that's THEIR terrible death symbol"?
A noose hanging on someone's door shouldn't be seen as anything other than "I want you dead." Just because it was hanging on a black professor's door, why does that automatically mean that it was saying "I want you dead, [n-word]"?
Is it right to hang a symbol of death on someone's property to symbolically state that you wish they were dead? Not really.
Does that automatically make it a racial issue? Not really.
Does that automatically make it a hate crime? Sure, but only in the sense that you probably hate someone if you wish they were dead - not necessarily hating them because of race or religion or something.
All I'm really trying to say is that we spend too much time attributing extra emotions to things that already HAVE emotions attributed to them. There's a lot of hate involved when you display a death implement to someone in hopes that they will get the message and die already. But that hate doesn't need EXTRA emotions like racial bias and sex discrimination and ethnic cleansing or anything tacked on to make it WORSE. It's already BAD. We KNOW that.
Maybe instead of trying to find extra hatred in the world by digging deeper into open wounds, we can try and find more love and compassion and forgiveness to alleviate some of the tension and create LESS hatred in the world that needs to be overanalyzed by the media.
And to avoid ending on a sappy-made-for-TV notion, I'll end by saying that "no noose is good noose."
(The Columbia teacher noose)
(The Home Depot noose)
(The high school noose)
Read more!
Yes, earlier that year, three white kids hung nooses from trees and were unfairly let off with a warning.
Nothing to do with the fact that six black kids beat up a white kid and jailarity ensued and then Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton got in the mix. And whenever those two start speaking out, they fan the flames of hatred as well. I don't like to think of myself as a bigot or a racist - but when those two start with their claptrap and outcries and demands, I have to admit that my personal view of their race diminishes proportionately with the size of the ruckus they're creating.
Not surprisingly, others must feel the same way I do (well, maybe a hundredfold worse, since I'd never do anything that a jury would consider a "hate crime" against a race) - because nooses are popping up all over the news stories now. Let's take a quick look:
Yes, you probably heard about the professor who had a noose put on her door.
Get a bunch of college liberals riled up, and the media won't be too far behind. Hilariously enough (if you can find humor in the situation, and I apparently can) - the professor, Madonna Constantine, wasn't even around that day. Another professor found it on Constantine's door, and went to find Constantine's research partner. They went and found security, and eventually called the professor so she wouldn't be startled the next time she went to work.
The uproar caused a march from Teachers College (the education grad school branch of Columbia University) down to the main Columbia campus, and a quote from one of the marchers just kind of made me angry and laugh at the same time.
"Teachers College student Nicole Woodard told them she wasn't surprised by the noose incident because she believes the college lacks racial diversity. "When I walk into a class of 100 students and can count on my fingers how many look like me, that's a problem," said Woodard, who is black. Teachers College, which was founded in 1887 and is the nation's largest grad school for education, has a student body that is 12% black, 11% Asian-American and 7% Hispanic."
Putting those sentences together makes it look like Woodard has twelve fingers. And if the statistics are trying to suggest that the school is indeed not diverse (or "racially homogenized"), I hope that people take into account the fact that it's a grad school for education majors. There are fewer minority teachers than ever, both in the major while trying to get their teaching certification, and in the profession - since there's a higher rate of minorities failing the teaching exams than white students.
They're actually considering "affirmative action" to get TEACHERS rather than STUDENTS into the schools.
But I digress, let's move on to a lesser-known news story involving a noose:
While working on the completion of a new Home Depot store in Illinois, a construction worker saw a noose made of a foam packaging material hanging in the garden center area.
He decided not to return to work at the store, for safety reasons, and nobody reported the incident until the following Monday, since during the weekend a racial slur had been spraypainted inside the store by vandals.
And let's not forget the student who has since apologized for his actions:
The high-schooler drove around the parking lot of his high school with a noose hanging from his rear-view mirror and a Confederate flag hanging inside his vehicle.
It's still not known if he was suspended or expelled from his school - he hasn't been there since his arrest for disorderly conduct. He has since made a public apology and asked for forgiveness, which has currently been widely accepted by those he offended.
So what does all this mean?
Frankly, I think it means that too many people are giving this symbol way too much power over their lives and emotions.
It's just another example of words and symbols and ideas being STOLEN by racial groups. They get to claim it as their own, it belongs to nobody else. They're the only ones who can use it in a non-threatening manner, and they're the only ones who get to feel threatened by it. Anything else is "racism" to them.
Back in the day, my fraternity was the victim of this "stolen symbol syndrome" - we hosted a party and the flier had the word "ghetto" on it. The party was a costume party and you can undoubtedly guess the theme. While I had little problem with the fact that a few select individuals felt offended by the nature or theme of the party, I was dismayed and offended to hear that a few black females were offended by our use of the word "ghetto" and wrote a formal complaint to the college administration. They claimed it was THEIR WORD and we weren't allowed to use it, especially in such a manner, because it offended them.
I won't go into the many many logical arguments of how the word itself is NOT something entirely owned by African-Americans - I'm pretty sure I've done that before. What I will go into is how it relates to black people and nooses. Just like the whole "ghetto" story, I will admit that for a period of time, nooses were used in lynchings directed at black people, predominantly in the South. However, practically in the same breath, people should be reminded that it wasn't JUST black people who were the victims of lynchings. And then in the NEXT breath, people should be reminded that the noose is a symbol of death - of unbiased and impartial death.
Unless every suicide in the history of mankind that involved a noose was committed by a black person - which it certainly wasn't - there should not be this immediate decision that any noose you view is an attack on that race. Are you seriously going to try and convince me that the hanging of Saddam Hussein was offensive to black people because "that's THEIR terrible death symbol"?
A noose hanging on someone's door shouldn't be seen as anything other than "I want you dead." Just because it was hanging on a black professor's door, why does that automatically mean that it was saying "I want you dead, [n-word]"?
Is it right to hang a symbol of death on someone's property to symbolically state that you wish they were dead? Not really.
Does that automatically make it a racial issue? Not really.
Does that automatically make it a hate crime? Sure, but only in the sense that you probably hate someone if you wish they were dead - not necessarily hating them because of race or religion or something.
All I'm really trying to say is that we spend too much time attributing extra emotions to things that already HAVE emotions attributed to them. There's a lot of hate involved when you display a death implement to someone in hopes that they will get the message and die already. But that hate doesn't need EXTRA emotions like racial bias and sex discrimination and ethnic cleansing or anything tacked on to make it WORSE. It's already BAD. We KNOW that.
Maybe instead of trying to find extra hatred in the world by digging deeper into open wounds, we can try and find more love and compassion and forgiveness to alleviate some of the tension and create LESS hatred in the world that needs to be overanalyzed by the media.
And to avoid ending on a sappy-made-for-TV notion, I'll end by saying that "no noose is good noose."
(The Columbia teacher noose)
(The Home Depot noose)
(The high school noose)
Read more!
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Back-to-School Special
Here in Chicago, it's the first day of school. Which means that in a few weeks, it'll finally be time to take down the "Back to School" sales and really pitch in with the holiday-themed items. I've already seen tons of displays up for Hallowe'en candy, which you can apparently now purchase far enough in advance to wind up eating the entire collection of "fun-sized" candies and still pick up replacements at a discount. But that's a topic for another day: I'm here to relay some messages to the little ones out there who are starting their first days of the new school year.
For the elementary school children:
LEARN TO READ, WRITE AND DO 'RITHMATIC!
We can't all be geniuses who learn to read at age 18 months, but the least you can do is keep at it and become literate - so in time, you'll learn how to spell, how to expand your vocabulary and then you'll be in a position above practically 70% of the population when you're in high school. Of course, knowing how to spell doesn't get put to good use (other than spelling bee trophies) until you learn how to write put your ideas into words. The faster you can pick that up, the better your chances will be of having people take your ideas seriously. As for math, don't be an idiot who has to count things with fingers, and needs to wear open-toed shoes in case they need to go above ten. I'm not saying that you have to take calculus or anything, I'm just saying that all of the good jobs involve degrees that require math - and a lot of the crappier jobs still require you to add and subtract quickly, let alone multiply and divide on a bad day. Trust me, math skills will help you save money in almost every situation if you know how to use it.
For the teachers and parents: in order to have your children learn to read, write and do 'rithmatic, you need to stop babying them! Not everybody is a winner, especially not your kids. They need to learn that someone is always better than them and only one person gets to take home the grand prize. If that's your kid, enjoy the moment while it lasts, because there's always someone at your heels, ready to be the next #1. Teams lose, because one did better than the other. Telling them that "everyone who plays is a winner" plants false ideas in their heads - try implanting good sportsmanship. The best way to do that is by demonstrating it, which means NOT being a jackass parent yelling at an umpire or coach about unfair calls and your precious child not getting enough play time. If you wanted your children to always get to play, you should be playing in a park with them as a family, not as a team.
For the high school children:
SHUT UP, PUT YOUR TOYS AWAY AND LEARN!
You know how your parents and grandparents will tell you boring stories about walking five miles to school, in the snow, both ways, and then using old contraptions like slide rules while hand-writing every piece of work because there were no new-fangled computers back then? LISTEN TO THEM! They didn't have your fancy toys, and they learned enough to get them through life, didn't they? Went to school every day because it's the law, AND they'd get a whoopin' if they were caught playing hookey? Studied real hard so they'd get good grades so they wouldn't get another whoopin'? Graduated high school and either went to college or got a job - something something more whoopin'?
It's called a "hard life" and it builds character! That's not just a catchphrase taught to all parents in a mandatory seminar. (Trust me, while all parents should have a mandatory seminar, this whole "character" notion is something bonus that comes from people who actually did it.) Things that are hard to do are usually the things worth doing. Hand-write an essay and you'll find you're more careful about your wording and making mistakes in the language. Try multiplying or adding something on paper instead of with a calculator every now and then - it's a good refresher and firing up those brain synapses keeps them active and healthy and can actually help ward off Alzheimer's.
As for your toys - leave them at home, where toys belong. Yes, every single human being on the planet now seems to have a cellphone - great for emergency contact and scheduling, but not for school time. Same goes for... just about anything electronic that distracts you from shutting up, paying attention and doing your damned schoolwork! I'm not going to promise you that every course and every lesson throughout high school is crucial to living in the real world - but every course DOES offer knowledge that IS necessary to being a well-rounded individual and the potential to not shame your family's name at some point in your life. You know all those studies that say Americans can't locate (insert country) on a map? Maybe if they'd paid more attention in Geography class, they wouldn't be screwing up and making our country the laughingstock in the education department that it currently is!
For the college-bound young adults:
QUIT WASTING TIME AND MONEY AND GET A JOB!
I'm currently more a believer in the idea that college really doesn't do much for you in the real world. And no, college is NOT the real world. It's just a lazy version of high school because parents are no longer part of the equation. They're not pushing you out of bed so you'll get to school/class on time. They're not checking up on your grades with report cards and parent-teacher conferences. They're just an ATM for when beer money supplies are low. This is the point that most college students pass through for some duration of their journey through college. Also the point where I'd yell at them to GET A JOB.
I also hear these tales about how college graduates make $500,000 more in a lifetime, or make double what a non-college graduate makes. What they DON'T mention is the insane amount of loans it generally takes to get through the four years of college for a standard degree. These loans build up, become huge, and even after consolidation - they're huge and you have to pay them with interest. The debt is staggering, and it can seriously ruin your credit rating. What good is an extra 50% salary if all the things you want to buy are off-limits due to bad credit?
You know, not everyone gets into college, either. There's currently an issue in Colorado over the fact that graduation requirements for high schools aren't high enough to match entrance requirements for colleges. So rather than make high school students learn more, or accept the fact that some of 'em aren't good enough or ready for college - they're dropping/lowering the admissions standards to get into college. That's just sick in my book. We're dumbing down so much in American schools, why bother having standards at all? Let's just throw some books at children, expect them to read them, realize they probably won't, then take a nap and wait for the next school year? College is for people who are smart enough and driven enough to warrant getting in. If you're not one of those people, you don't belong in college. Yea, even if you DID get in. Quit wasting everyone's time and just get a job.
Then there's the groups of people who try to convince you that without a degree, you'll never climb that ladder or gain entry to the job positions and types of "work you'll enjoy doing." I say that there are plenty of positions open where the work is something you can enjoy doing. Unfortunately, jobs aren't just about the work, they're about the company/business and co-workers and other employees and bosses that make a job a JOB. If I didn't have bosses yelling at me and deadlines that are unfeasible and co-workers who are a few rocks short of a box, I'd absolutely love the work I'm doing. I enjoy data analysis and reporting. I also enjoy my side-gig of writing articles like these. What it all comes down to is that you can always pick your career - picking everything else isn't up to you, it's all a crap shoot and work was never really meant to be fun.
If work were meant to be fun, they wouldn't have to pay you to get you to do it.
That's all for this segment of my Back-to-School Special. There will undoubtedly be a Part Two.
(The Colorado college stuff)
Read more!
For the elementary school children:
LEARN TO READ, WRITE AND DO 'RITHMATIC!
We can't all be geniuses who learn to read at age 18 months, but the least you can do is keep at it and become literate - so in time, you'll learn how to spell, how to expand your vocabulary and then you'll be in a position above practically 70% of the population when you're in high school. Of course, knowing how to spell doesn't get put to good use (other than spelling bee trophies) until you learn how to write put your ideas into words. The faster you can pick that up, the better your chances will be of having people take your ideas seriously. As for math, don't be an idiot who has to count things with fingers, and needs to wear open-toed shoes in case they need to go above ten. I'm not saying that you have to take calculus or anything, I'm just saying that all of the good jobs involve degrees that require math - and a lot of the crappier jobs still require you to add and subtract quickly, let alone multiply and divide on a bad day. Trust me, math skills will help you save money in almost every situation if you know how to use it.
For the teachers and parents: in order to have your children learn to read, write and do 'rithmatic, you need to stop babying them! Not everybody is a winner, especially not your kids. They need to learn that someone is always better than them and only one person gets to take home the grand prize. If that's your kid, enjoy the moment while it lasts, because there's always someone at your heels, ready to be the next #1. Teams lose, because one did better than the other. Telling them that "everyone who plays is a winner" plants false ideas in their heads - try implanting good sportsmanship. The best way to do that is by demonstrating it, which means NOT being a jackass parent yelling at an umpire or coach about unfair calls and your precious child not getting enough play time. If you wanted your children to always get to play, you should be playing in a park with them as a family, not as a team.
For the high school children:
SHUT UP, PUT YOUR TOYS AWAY AND LEARN!
You know how your parents and grandparents will tell you boring stories about walking five miles to school, in the snow, both ways, and then using old contraptions like slide rules while hand-writing every piece of work because there were no new-fangled computers back then? LISTEN TO THEM! They didn't have your fancy toys, and they learned enough to get them through life, didn't they? Went to school every day because it's the law, AND they'd get a whoopin' if they were caught playing hookey? Studied real hard so they'd get good grades so they wouldn't get another whoopin'? Graduated high school and either went to college or got a job - something something more whoopin'?
It's called a "hard life" and it builds character! That's not just a catchphrase taught to all parents in a mandatory seminar. (Trust me, while all parents should have a mandatory seminar, this whole "character" notion is something bonus that comes from people who actually did it.) Things that are hard to do are usually the things worth doing. Hand-write an essay and you'll find you're more careful about your wording and making mistakes in the language. Try multiplying or adding something on paper instead of with a calculator every now and then - it's a good refresher and firing up those brain synapses keeps them active and healthy and can actually help ward off Alzheimer's.
As for your toys - leave them at home, where toys belong. Yes, every single human being on the planet now seems to have a cellphone - great for emergency contact and scheduling, but not for school time. Same goes for... just about anything electronic that distracts you from shutting up, paying attention and doing your damned schoolwork! I'm not going to promise you that every course and every lesson throughout high school is crucial to living in the real world - but every course DOES offer knowledge that IS necessary to being a well-rounded individual and the potential to not shame your family's name at some point in your life. You know all those studies that say Americans can't locate (insert country) on a map? Maybe if they'd paid more attention in Geography class, they wouldn't be screwing up and making our country the laughingstock in the education department that it currently is!
For the college-bound young adults:
QUIT WASTING TIME AND MONEY AND GET A JOB!
I'm currently more a believer in the idea that college really doesn't do much for you in the real world. And no, college is NOT the real world. It's just a lazy version of high school because parents are no longer part of the equation. They're not pushing you out of bed so you'll get to school/class on time. They're not checking up on your grades with report cards and parent-teacher conferences. They're just an ATM for when beer money supplies are low. This is the point that most college students pass through for some duration of their journey through college. Also the point where I'd yell at them to GET A JOB.
I also hear these tales about how college graduates make $500,000 more in a lifetime, or make double what a non-college graduate makes. What they DON'T mention is the insane amount of loans it generally takes to get through the four years of college for a standard degree. These loans build up, become huge, and even after consolidation - they're huge and you have to pay them with interest. The debt is staggering, and it can seriously ruin your credit rating. What good is an extra 50% salary if all the things you want to buy are off-limits due to bad credit?
You know, not everyone gets into college, either. There's currently an issue in Colorado over the fact that graduation requirements for high schools aren't high enough to match entrance requirements for colleges. So rather than make high school students learn more, or accept the fact that some of 'em aren't good enough or ready for college - they're dropping/lowering the admissions standards to get into college. That's just sick in my book. We're dumbing down so much in American schools, why bother having standards at all? Let's just throw some books at children, expect them to read them, realize they probably won't, then take a nap and wait for the next school year? College is for people who are smart enough and driven enough to warrant getting in. If you're not one of those people, you don't belong in college. Yea, even if you DID get in. Quit wasting everyone's time and just get a job.
Then there's the groups of people who try to convince you that without a degree, you'll never climb that ladder or gain entry to the job positions and types of "work you'll enjoy doing." I say that there are plenty of positions open where the work is something you can enjoy doing. Unfortunately, jobs aren't just about the work, they're about the company/business and co-workers and other employees and bosses that make a job a JOB. If I didn't have bosses yelling at me and deadlines that are unfeasible and co-workers who are a few rocks short of a box, I'd absolutely love the work I'm doing. I enjoy data analysis and reporting. I also enjoy my side-gig of writing articles like these. What it all comes down to is that you can always pick your career - picking everything else isn't up to you, it's all a crap shoot and work was never really meant to be fun.
If work were meant to be fun, they wouldn't have to pay you to get you to do it.
That's all for this segment of my Back-to-School Special. There will undoubtedly be a Part Two.
(The Colorado college stuff)
Read more!
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
It's a "Hate Crime" to Hate Crime??
I'm told that this all started back on July 5th. Or at least around then. A group of protesters from a group supporting a Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act went on a hunger strike to further press this issue of giving relief to illegal immigrant children for secondary eduaction and making college and military service another pathway of amnesty to making them legal citizens. Okay, so already we've got a rather dumb idea. But it all started to really hit the fan when Michael Savage had his say:
"I would say let them fast till they starve to death. ... Because then we won't have a problem about giving them green cards because they're illegal aliens."
And bleeding-heart liberal San Francisco went ablaze in fervor over the remarks. They went so far as to waste taxpayer money (because taxpayers are responsible for paying their representatives' salaries) by having Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval introduce a resolution Tuesday condemning the "defamatory language used by radio personality Michael Savage against immigrants." And soon, more will be wasted as the Supervisor plans to call a vote on the official condemnation.
I'm asking of you: Who did he defame, and how were they defamed?
The protesters on the hunger strike trying to get amnesty for illegal immigrants? How did he defame them? By disagreeing with their stance on an issue? By not taking their method of protest seriously? If not agreeing with a method of protest or the reason for the protest and verbalizing it is wrong, then all counterprotests would result in "condemnation" and "defamation" news, wouldn't it?
The illegal immigrants? The ones who want us to help pay for them to go to college and cheat their way into legal citizenship? How were they defamed? Michael Savage doesn't want them to get green cards. He called them exactly what they are - illegal aliens. That's not defamation at all. It's stating the obvious. They're not citizens, and they're here illegally. They are criminals. Okay, Michael Savage didn't say that, but I am. Does that mean I've defamed illegal immigrants by posting this?
Good. Defamation is a way of reducing the fame and popularity of someone. And the less famous and popular we make the criminals walking amongst us and the less public support they're receiving as a result - the better.
Now let's get to the idea that this is "hate speech" or a "hate crime":
As for hate speech, I think the only appropriate response is, "SO WHAT?" Speech can be hateful. As long as there are hateful emotions, there will be hateful words and hateful speech to express that hatred.
As for calling it a crime? No f-ing way. The man has done nothing criminal in the least. In fact, he's expressing hatred and outrage about CRIME being committed by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! How can it be a "hate crime" to hate a crime? The only criminals here are the illegal immigrants - especially those who want more support and help to continue their criminal lives here and seek amnesty for the crimes they've committed.
Here's the real problem. Government officials are going out of their way to officially condemn this radio show host for the comments that he made. But here's the thing: he was telling the government officials themselves to stay the course and NOT give in to some piddly little hunger strike. In his own words (which you wouldn't hear in the biased liberal media who's comparing him to Imus), "the logical conclusion of a hunger strike is starvation. That's their right."
Savage went on to explain that the hunger strikers are illegal aliens, "who stole free college educations and then had the audacity to demand citizenship because they were slippery enough to beat the system out of a college degree!" The strikers, he said "owe the U.S. taxpayer reimbursement for their college degrees, and any other public benefits they may have cadged over their years here illegally. Then they should be deported."
If it's condemnable to speak up and speak out against illegal immigrants robbing citizens of so many resources, demanding that we be reimbursed for what they've stolen, or calling for their deportation - then I'm willing to bet that some hippie in San Francisco is writing up a proposal to condemn me as well.
And I'd welcome it. After all, there's no such thing as bad publicity. And illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. Strange how not a single Latino-based or Civil-Liberty-based organization will accept that...
(A story about the Michael Savage condemnation)
Read more!
"I would say let them fast till they starve to death. ... Because then we won't have a problem about giving them green cards because they're illegal aliens."
And bleeding-heart liberal San Francisco went ablaze in fervor over the remarks. They went so far as to waste taxpayer money (because taxpayers are responsible for paying their representatives' salaries) by having Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval introduce a resolution Tuesday condemning the "defamatory language used by radio personality Michael Savage against immigrants." And soon, more will be wasted as the Supervisor plans to call a vote on the official condemnation.
I'm asking of you: Who did he defame, and how were they defamed?
The protesters on the hunger strike trying to get amnesty for illegal immigrants? How did he defame them? By disagreeing with their stance on an issue? By not taking their method of protest seriously? If not agreeing with a method of protest or the reason for the protest and verbalizing it is wrong, then all counterprotests would result in "condemnation" and "defamation" news, wouldn't it?
The illegal immigrants? The ones who want us to help pay for them to go to college and cheat their way into legal citizenship? How were they defamed? Michael Savage doesn't want them to get green cards. He called them exactly what they are - illegal aliens. That's not defamation at all. It's stating the obvious. They're not citizens, and they're here illegally. They are criminals. Okay, Michael Savage didn't say that, but I am. Does that mean I've defamed illegal immigrants by posting this?
Good. Defamation is a way of reducing the fame and popularity of someone. And the less famous and popular we make the criminals walking amongst us and the less public support they're receiving as a result - the better.
Now let's get to the idea that this is "hate speech" or a "hate crime":
As for hate speech, I think the only appropriate response is, "SO WHAT?" Speech can be hateful. As long as there are hateful emotions, there will be hateful words and hateful speech to express that hatred.
As for calling it a crime? No f-ing way. The man has done nothing criminal in the least. In fact, he's expressing hatred and outrage about CRIME being committed by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! How can it be a "hate crime" to hate a crime? The only criminals here are the illegal immigrants - especially those who want more support and help to continue their criminal lives here and seek amnesty for the crimes they've committed.
Here's the real problem. Government officials are going out of their way to officially condemn this radio show host for the comments that he made. But here's the thing: he was telling the government officials themselves to stay the course and NOT give in to some piddly little hunger strike. In his own words (which you wouldn't hear in the biased liberal media who's comparing him to Imus), "the logical conclusion of a hunger strike is starvation. That's their right."
Savage went on to explain that the hunger strikers are illegal aliens, "who stole free college educations and then had the audacity to demand citizenship because they were slippery enough to beat the system out of a college degree!" The strikers, he said "owe the U.S. taxpayer reimbursement for their college degrees, and any other public benefits they may have cadged over their years here illegally. Then they should be deported."
If it's condemnable to speak up and speak out against illegal immigrants robbing citizens of so many resources, demanding that we be reimbursed for what they've stolen, or calling for their deportation - then I'm willing to bet that some hippie in San Francisco is writing up a proposal to condemn me as well.
And I'd welcome it. After all, there's no such thing as bad publicity. And illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. Strange how not a single Latino-based or Civil-Liberty-based organization will accept that...
(A story about the Michael Savage condemnation)
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
