No doubt all of you who read this regularly (Both of you) have been waiting for my snarky, philosophmoric ramblings on the topic. Today is your lucky day. See, I can feel my back locking up again and since the muscle relaxer I was prescribed made me break out in hives, I am using the same one Grampa did: Rye whiskey. (Well, some kind of whiskey). The two effects this course of treatment have are relaxation, and an even greater degree of apathy about whether you want my opinion, or not.
I will not go into the politics of this issue. I don't need to. The Supreme Court is currently deciding if the individual mandate is within the scope of powers of the Congress, to make law. The implications of this ruling stand to change more than just the law most of you refer to as "Obamacare". This decision could knock the legs out of many long standing federal programs.
The indications are that the votes will be split along party lines. There are currently five Republican-appointed justices, and four Democrat-appointed ones. This is what makes me sad, angry, frustrated, and pitchfork-grabby. If they are deciding a matter of constitutionality, party affiliation should not matter at all. This is true for all decisions they face, and true regardless of their, or anyone else's party affiliation. And yet, here we are, staring down a court that, despite being sworn to uphold the Constitution, gives no indication this is even a consideration.
In short: the two-party system had corrupted the highest court in the land. That is really all I can say on this without being seen as taking sides. Although if I were to make a statement on this topic, it would be this: A federal healthcare program is an all-or-nothing proposition. What we have is severely "semicolon-ing" (half-a$$-ing) the idea.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Dewey defeats Santorum.
I will be brief. With slightly over 20 percent of precincts reporting, ABC news was calling the win for Romney. An hour later Romney's lead was a bit less, but they were still calling it for him. Half the state is currently reporting.
It would be funny if Santorum pulled this one out. How could he, at this point? Good question, it shows you're thinking. I will elucidate below. Also pontificate, and BS-ify.
See the counties reporting first, are the ones with the newest, fastest, voting machines. Those are the large urban centers that are more centrist. The counties not yet reporting are the ones with older slower gear, lower populations, and guess what: voters who are more conservative. Romney's lead isn't that high as to be insurmountable. Santorum could pull off a victory yet. (Not cheering for him, Voted Paul, as always.)
I'm not saying Santorum will win, but c'mon networks, are you incapable of learning?
It would be funny if Santorum pulled this one out. How could he, at this point? Good question, it shows you're thinking. I will elucidate below. Also pontificate, and BS-ify.
See the counties reporting first, are the ones with the newest, fastest, voting machines. Those are the large urban centers that are more centrist. The counties not yet reporting are the ones with older slower gear, lower populations, and guess what: voters who are more conservative. Romney's lead isn't that high as to be insurmountable. Santorum could pull off a victory yet. (Not cheering for him, Voted Paul, as always.)
I'm not saying Santorum will win, but c'mon networks, are you incapable of learning?
Sunday, March 4, 2012
This is what lower standards buys us.
I am not, I repeat, not talking about politicians. I know, the title suggests it, but I assure you, I am talking about school.
Back in your grandparent's day, colleges and universities had entrance exams. Each college has it's own. In a time when a fourth grade education was enough to land you a job where a single income could support a family, college was something for the privileged few. If you couldn't pass the entrance exams your family better have enough money to donate a new science wing, or you didn't get in. This preserved the school's reputation, and kept out the people out who wouldn't pass anyway. There was rampant racism, and sexism. This was not a perfect system, as some of the best and the brightest were denied an education that could have benefited us all.
By the time our parents were of age to go to college there were more options. One could earn a "Basic liberal arts" degree, and land a good job based on this "qualification". Schools were still using tests, and there was some sexism, and some racism, but this was offset by affirmative action programs. Student loans were not yet the predominant method of paying for education.
By the time we get there, college is widely available, hideously expensive, and financed with loans. This is because the average tuition over the last few decades, has increased at four times the inflation rate. This is not simply adjusting to reflect the value of a dollar, nor is it merely covering costs.
Despite the number of colleges available to the average student, and the availability of an online option for nearly all of them, costs have risen. Let me see if I remember the law of supply and demand from school. Hmm... as supply increases, costs decrease?! That means that colleges are somehow immune to supply and demand.
Since the 40's there has been more than a six-fold increase in the number of people attaining four-year degrees; and many more college choices, and yet the cost of each degree is RISING, relative to inflation. (http://www.realonlinedegrees.com/us-education-attainment-from-1940-2008/) This means that the people who are obtaining degrees are not merely the rich or gifted, as it was historically. Rather, the defining characteristic of a college graduate today is the willingness to bankrupt themselves with student loans. Intellect has little to do with it anymore.
Since we have lower admission requirements, we needed to lower the difficulty of obtaining a degree. That cheapens the value of each degree. With a degree worth less, the earning potential of a graduate is less, relative to where it was in the past. Still better to have a degree than not, but it no longer makes you anything special.
Forget a national healthcare program. Let's work on "free" education, based on ability, for as long as someone cares to pursue it. (you can even use the same arguments, "It's a right", "They do it in Europe successfully", etc...) We need to prioritize education. Actual education. We are currently importing engineers, and are churning out business majors. Which of those innovates? Which of those creates new products? Which of those drives economies? And which one: "Collaboratively synergizes new opportunities, while leveraging market position for maximum stockholder value"?
(Can you smell that?)
Back in your grandparent's day, colleges and universities had entrance exams. Each college has it's own. In a time when a fourth grade education was enough to land you a job where a single income could support a family, college was something for the privileged few. If you couldn't pass the entrance exams your family better have enough money to donate a new science wing, or you didn't get in. This preserved the school's reputation, and kept out the people out who wouldn't pass anyway. There was rampant racism, and sexism. This was not a perfect system, as some of the best and the brightest were denied an education that could have benefited us all.
By the time our parents were of age to go to college there were more options. One could earn a "Basic liberal arts" degree, and land a good job based on this "qualification". Schools were still using tests, and there was some sexism, and some racism, but this was offset by affirmative action programs. Student loans were not yet the predominant method of paying for education.
By the time we get there, college is widely available, hideously expensive, and financed with loans. This is because the average tuition over the last few decades, has increased at four times the inflation rate. This is not simply adjusting to reflect the value of a dollar, nor is it merely covering costs.
Despite the number of colleges available to the average student, and the availability of an online option for nearly all of them, costs have risen. Let me see if I remember the law of supply and demand from school. Hmm... as supply increases, costs decrease?! That means that colleges are somehow immune to supply and demand.
Since the 40's there has been more than a six-fold increase in the number of people attaining four-year degrees; and many more college choices, and yet the cost of each degree is RISING, relative to inflation. (http://www.realonlinedegrees.com/us-education-attainment-from-1940-2008/) This means that the people who are obtaining degrees are not merely the rich or gifted, as it was historically. Rather, the defining characteristic of a college graduate today is the willingness to bankrupt themselves with student loans. Intellect has little to do with it anymore.
Since we have lower admission requirements, we needed to lower the difficulty of obtaining a degree. That cheapens the value of each degree. With a degree worth less, the earning potential of a graduate is less, relative to where it was in the past. Still better to have a degree than not, but it no longer makes you anything special.
Forget a national healthcare program. Let's work on "free" education, based on ability, for as long as someone cares to pursue it. (you can even use the same arguments, "It's a right", "They do it in Europe successfully", etc...) We need to prioritize education. Actual education. We are currently importing engineers, and are churning out business majors. Which of those innovates? Which of those creates new products? Which of those drives economies? And which one: "Collaboratively synergizes new opportunities, while leveraging market position for maximum stockholder value"?
(Can you smell that?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)