In The Grand Scheme of Things...

I have begun to realize that in the grand scheme of things, ideology, politics, and other things like that are on the periphery of most people's lives.  Most people have enough to worry about without thinking about such high minded topics as the proper role of government or what their moral code should be.  As a result, most people let others think for them on these topics.  Most simply absorb the general consensus opinion of those around them, or adopt the opinions they inherited from their parents and/or elders.  I have come to realize that the most important things to people are what they have to deal with day in and day out.  However, while that might be the case, everyone suffers when we collectively ignore political issues, while everyone benefits when we work to better educate ourselves on them.

In college it was easy to feel that you were talking about the most important things of society.  That the problems you discussed were not only the biggest, but also the most urgent.  Yet I have slowly begun to realize that for most people, the most urgent things have nothing to do with the things us high minded college students have to talk about.  Most people's concerns are much more down to earth and much more grounded in reality, while the problems I have tended to focus on are simply not their main concern.  It has been easy for me to judge others as not caring as much as they should.  Yet when I think about it, why should they?  Most people have little capacity to fix most of the high minded problems I bring up or other idealistic college students.  Their reaction to ignore or simplify political discourse is actually a very pragmatic response.  They deal with things that actually are in their capacity to fix, and do not bother wasting time and resources trying to solve problems outside of their grasp.

It is easy for the college student to look down on his older peers for such a narrow way of thinking, but that is because the college student has all the time in the world to think about such things.  Why? a college student, especially a liberal arts college student, is given the task of educating himself on these issues.  He needs to, or perish, for success in the college atmosphere requires that he think long and hard about such issues and commit them to memory, and hopefully get an A in the process.  

This attitude makes practical sense
on an individual level.

Meanwhile, most who have jobs in the real world are not assigned this task.  Studying such highminded  topics most  likely would not help them in their job, raising their family, or being a better person.  Self help books are much more popular amongst this group exactly because these books attempt to help them with these things.  This sort of education these books provide arm them with knowledge that will actually help them live out a better life.

That is not to say that all the high minded political and ideological issues are not important, they are, but the response of most working people to these issues makes sense given the context.  On an individual level, they can do little to improve these things.  On an individual level, they are pretty much powerless to change any of those issues.  In addition, they do not have the incentive a college student would have to care, for a college student's financial future depends on his grades, which in turn depend on his knowledge of such issues.  

If we are not well informed politically, how are
we to be entrusted to vote

However, while their reaction makes sense, it is ultimately destructive for our nation.  People must be aware of these issues and work to become better informed citizens, for a better informed citizenry can make better informed decisions over what problems our nation must face and on who we should elect or fund to face them.  See, on an individual level it indeed does not make sense to care, but on a collective level it does.  The collective nation benefits from being better educated about political and ideological issues.  If my neighbor votes smarter, it would ultimately benefit me and everyone else.  The problem I describe is called in economics "the free rider" problem.  If everyone was well educated on these things, there is always an individual incentive not to care.  Why? I can do other things with my time that would benefit me more.  However, if everyone follows this attitude, then everyone is worse off, for then our politics will be as stupid as our citizenry.  

Keep this in mind today and in the future.  Work to educate yourself on these "highminded" issues.  It will take time, but it would be worth it.  Any time anyone works to educate himself, everyone benefits. Any time someone decides to leave himself uneducated, everyone suffers.  The opinion elite exists precisely because normal people are not willing to take the time to educate themselves.  Until we all work together to become more informed collectively, a small section of the population will continue to dominate political discourse, and ultimately will rule for us.  If we wish to keep America "by the people for the people," then we better fulfill both parts of that clause.  As long as our government continues to not be "by the people," it will never be "for the people."

The Job

Having a job is liberating yet debilitating at the same time.  The first day on the new job has made me realized how little I actually know.  I know now more than ever, that college pumps you up simply to get torn down afterward.  The job description sounds seemingly simple.  Yet ultimately the job is infinitely complex.  Perhaps after a while I will get down the basics and things will go more smoothly, but today I felt like I bombed it.  I showed up late, looked sloppy, and felt like a dunce trying to learn everything.  I was humbled today, and learned that learning never stops, ever.

I am determined to do well at this job, yet the challenges still feel immense.  The worst part is that I have to boss strangers around, over the phone.  I felt dumb trying to boss these guys around when I am sure both of us knew that he knew far more about the subject than I did.  I stumbled over my words, and often forgot exactly what I had to tell them.  Even worse I have to be as efficient as possible to get all the work done that has to be done every day, and boy is there a lot of it.

Yep, this is my life now.

I feel like I understand your average American wage earner a little better than I used too.  Work is blood, sweat, and tears.  It is not fun.  I suppose many may find it fun, but the majority I am sure find it to be absolute misery for 40 hours a week.  Do not get me wrong, I am sure everyone gets a sense of accomplishment from mastering a task and doing it well.  I am sure when I finally grasp what I am doing I will feel the same sense of pride in my work.  However, ultimately I doubt I will ever enjoy this.  I believe most are that way.

Yet I also learned something else.  Jobs are not just about enjoying your work, they are also about enjoying your peers.  I hope to get to know everyone there better.  There are many interesting people there I would like to learn more about.  However the first day I was quite shell shocked and immobilized socially by the sheer complexity of everything I had to do.  Hopefully that will improve, I do not want to appear as socially inept to everyone around me, for obvious reasons.

Jobs like this one make the world go round.  I hope to in some small way make a positive difference in the world.  I know if I do my job well and serve those around me diligently and humbly, then I can make some kind of difference.  Welp, goodbye unemployment, hello job.  I hope we can be friends, otherwise it will be quite a tumultuous relationship.

"Separation of Church and State" in Education

The separation of church and state card is perhaps the most arbitrary and stupid card in the game of politics.  It use to simply mean that neither institution, church or state, should control the other.  Now, our interpretation of this phrase has went way too far.  Now, we take separation of church and state to mean suppression of all religious expression in any state controlled or owned enterprise, even when initiated by an individual without the support of the state.  Basically, any religious expression is not permitted in government.  In addition, this has also come to be used as the ultimate trump card to silence any moral argument with which so and so may disagree.  Both uses are a far cry from the original intent of the 1st amendment, and in fact run directly against it.  No where is this more prevalent than in our schools.  It is about time our schools open discussion and stop the censorship of religious ideas.

There is nothing wrong with separation of church
and state, but when it becomes the suppression
of religious expression, there is a problem.

Our schools epitomize this false interpretation of separation of church and state.  Teachers and students are not allowed to talk about religion.  Discussions on religion are almost always prohibited, and guest speakers are not allowed to mention religion either.  All religious discussion is silenced.  Many will say that it must be this way to encourage tolerance and to prevent enforcing one's religious beliefs on others.  However this is not the right way to go about this.  Making religion a taboo topic simply forces everyone into exclusive religious enclaves.  Instead of silencing everyone, everyone should be given a voice.  Everyone should be encouraged to discuss their religious beliefs.  Schools do so with everything else.  They encourage political and moral discourse, but no, never religious discourse.  Yes, the teacher should not favor any religion.  Yes, religions should not be forced on anyone any more than anything else.  Yet I believe that forcing exposure to different religions is important for our development.  Learning about other religious practices and beliefs from members that practice that religion will encourage tolerance.  Learning to have an open dialogue with people of different faiths would help everyone to become more learned, tolerant, and open-minded thinkers.  

Yet we do exactly the opposite.  Our schools silence discussion.  They prevent our children from learning about different faiths and beliefs.  We do not do this with anything else, so why religion? Well I shall tell you why.  There is a hidden agenda.  Our schools desire to mold everyone into one common secular mind.  Many believe that religion is "irrational," and therefore the proliferation of it must be suppressed in schools in favor of rational science.  Tolerance is simply a weapon used to further this goal.  Yet ultimately such school practices have led to more intolerance of religious beliefs and feelings of superiority by the "enlightened" secular free thinking folk.  

In addition, it is funny that our schools treat religion as irrational.  That maybe true, but most of our thinking is ultimately irrational.  What do we base our morals on?  Some would say we rationally deduce our opinions.  Well, lets see if thats true.  Many believe that humans should not be killed if innocent.  Why do they believe that?  There is no "rational" argument for that.  Yes, you can say, "Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you."  However, why shouldn't you?  Why should you care to treat others the way you want to be treated, or don't treat them the way you don't want to be treated?  One can argue self-preservation I suppose.  But then, what if there came an opportunity where you could kill someone without anyone knowing or caring?  Then, is there any reason not to?  Under self-preservation no there isn't.  One could argue that it is necessary for the greater good.  However, what if the greater good was served by killing them?  Then you would have an obligation to kill them. Ultimately, when it comes down to it, this belief is irrational.  There is no logical reason why you should never kill an innocent human life.  Yet most of us believe that.  Most of us believe it is simply wrong to kill an innocent life.  

It is funny he does not mention
the rest of the phrase, which states,
"or prohibiting the free excercise
thereof."

Many beliefs are like that.  Many ideologies are based off of entirely irrational premises.  They are certainly not scientific, not provable.  In other words, many beliefs and ideologies are just like religions.  They cannot be proven, yet we hold on to them.  Often we will hold onto them fiercely.  Yet morality and philosophy are allowed to be discussed in schools.  Politics are allowed to be discussed in schools.  There is truly no good reason to not allow religious discussion in schools if these other irrational unscientific subjects are allowed.

Some will argue that religion is particularly heinous because it has led to war, genocide, and all sorts of other evils.  Yet picking out religious ideas as somehow more inherently evil than non-religious ideas is ridiculous.  Plenty of death has occurred in the name of secular ideals.  The whole Cold War was fought over economics.  The Soviet Union killed millions of people in the name of Marx's "Scientific Socialism," Nazi Germany killed millions in the name of the psuedo-science of eugenics, and the European imperialist powers waged war during World War 1, leading to the pointless death of millions more, in the name of secular nationalism.  Plenty of people have died in the name of non-religious ideologies and ideals, plenty.

Therefore, it is time schools stopped fearing religious discussion like the plague.  Yes, schools do not have to openly encourage any particular religion, but preventing discussion of religion is harmful to our kids education and will only enable them to see the world through the narrow prism of secularism and through whatever religious beliefs their parents have inculcated in their children.  The world is exploding religiously.  The east is awakening once again to religious beliefs, while the West continues to live in ignorance of this.  The West continues to rub its snobby nose at "irrational" religious ideals, while it continues to point the finger at others for atrocities, though it has no rational scientific reason to care.  The West blindly bases its morals off of ancient religious principles, yet continues to pretend it does not.  It is time to open up discussion of religion in our schools.  Its time to take a phenomenon seriously that is growing around the world, instead of blindly dismissing it.  

Laziness: the Silent Killer

There is a pandemic that has hit this nation.  It is a subtle killer.  It has claimed more lives than perhaps anything else in America, yet has been completely ignored by almost everyone.  The disease, is laziness.  Many problems we suffer have been spawned directly by this disease.  Worst, there is no pill you can take to cure it or vaccination you can take to prevent it.  The good thing is, no one has to suffer the disease.  Everyone can avoid the disease, yet many succumb anyway.  This is a warning to America, get off your couches and stop being lazy!

Definitely the wrong attitude to have.  You will
regret it in the future.

Those who come down with laziness think that they are blessed.  They revel initially in the disease.  They stop cleaning, working, cooking, hanging out with people, etc.  They stop doing anything that takes any physical or mental exertion.  Granted, it feels great at first, but quickly that great feeling deteriorates into guilt and self-loathing.  The victims feel worthless, for they are not contributing anything to anyone, and are being nothing more than a leach, sapping the blood out of America's rotting corpse.

Even worse, society has made antidotes to the disease that alleviate its symptoms but inevitably keep people hooked on the disease.  These antidotes deceive people into feeling that they are accomplishing something.  The antidote is video games, and it has racked America's youth.  Our young have fallen into the disease in droves because video games have provided a way to feel productive without producing anything of value.  Leveling up in Call of Duty or building the ultimate civilization in Civilization 5 have given many a false sense of productivity, but will ultimately leave them wanting as well.  If those who suffer this disease are to achieve any progress, they must first stop playing video games so excessively and start finding other activities that benefit others.

Diligence: the ultimate cure for
laziness

The time spent being lazy could be spent cleaning, working, cooking, socializing, working out, etc.  The time spent being lazy could be channeled to cultivate your brain and develop skills and/or connections that will help you achieve your goals.  Everyone has goals, but those goals cannot be achieved if you are lazy.  Likewise, this recession has lingered.  America, if it is to get out of this recession, must rely on the young workers to lead the charge.  The young these days have more resources at their disposal than anyone else to begin finding creative and innovating ways to improve society and earn a living, yet fewer today than ever before are actively utilizing the resources available to them.  One can learn almost anything on the internet.  One can find likeminded people on the internet that eventually can help you achieve your goals.  Get involved, get off the couch and begin finding ways to utilize the resources you have all around you.


I am in this predicament myself.  I know I have the resources to pursue my goals and dreams, but too often the laziness bug strikes and paralyzes me.  Say no to laziness!  I pledge myself to stop being lazy. I pledge myself to rigorously pursue my goals.  Will you pledge the same?  The disease can be defeated.  Those who have overcame the disease have never regretted it.  Those who do not suffer from it are more fulfilled and happy people.  You can be fulfilled and happy as well.  Do not let the opportunity pass you by.  Begin fighting laziness today!

Austin, Capital of Fun

Hello everybody I am back! Austin was great! Today I would just like to share with you some of the awesome things I did there.  Austin is truly an amazing city, and I fervently believe after spending a few days there that it maybe indeed one of the best cities for young people in the United States today.  There are so many things to do there, and it is a very unique place.  In addition, the city is very affordable to live in and there are many job opportunities there.  I spent almost 3 whole days there, and did not even scratch the surface of all the fun things to do.

This picture epitomizes Austin.

When I got there on Thursday I was blown away by how vibrant the city was, even when most of the college kids were gone.  Every month the city holds these festivals where several people pitch camp and try to sell you things.  There are several different cool little trinkets and doodads being sold by everyone and his mother.  The only let down of the trip was when I lamely tried to barter over the price, but needless to say, I was not very good at it, and ultimately I bought the shirt at his price.  Despite that one setback, the whole thing was very down to earth and fun.  All sorts of unique people were there, and there was not a pretentious soul in the whole place.


I learned that day that Austin's motto is, "Keep Austin Weird." I also learned that in keeping with that tradition, Austin's mascot is this crazy frog that has called Austin his home for the last 20 something years.   All the stores pay homage to Austin's weirdness, trying their best to keep Austin's weird factor as high as they can.  Many stores sold shirts with their motto and mascot on them, and of course, you can see University of Texas Orange everywhere you go (warning: you will see more than your fair share of ugly orange wearers here).  I kept hoping to find someone selling a "saw off em' horns" shirt, but my search was desperate and hopeless.

One of the crazy stores I went to was called "Toy Joy." It was an unique store, and at first sight I could not figure out how a store like that could stay open in a college town like this.  However when I went inside, I soon found out why.  The place is hilarious.  All sorts of weirdly distorted and amalgamated toys coexist in this shrine to all toys obscure.  Every toy you ever saw at Chucky Cheese made his debut, along with every other small toy you found in either a stocking stuffer or a piñata.  What made the place special besides the reminiscence it inspired, was the hilarious labels under each toy.  Each different toy had a witty label that made me burst out in laughter several times.  One said, "Beautiful woman for only $1.95." It probably does not sound funny, but at the time it was.

Another store highlight was this vintage clothes store.  I have always been a sucker for vintage things, and this was no exception.  My friends and I indulged ourselves in the bright colors from pastel pink to neon orange.  The 80's music playing in the background made the experience perfect.  I only wished I knew of such a store where I live.

There were several unique restaurants as well.  There was a Mexican restaurant along a lakeshore.  Everyone there wore hawaiian shirts, and a massive fake fish was leaping out of the water.  There were several light bulbs, which made me wonder how beautiful the place would be at night.  There I tried some Barbecue tacos.  They were positively scrumptious with a nice Texan twang.  There were several other cool restaurants we went to, but it would be too long to describe all of them.

If you haven't guessed, Austin is absolutely hoppin at night.  I tried out this one down to earth bar called "The Local." There were pool tables in there and some random band wearing prison jackets.  They were funny and the atmosphere was very relaxed.  In addition I look back fondly to kicking my friend's buttox at 8-ball.  There was also another cool place where you could play Jenga, yet it was quite loud and obnoxious in my opinion.

This is the venue we went to for the conert.

The last thing I did at Austin to cap off the whole weekend was go to a "Head and the Heart" concert.  It was interesting to say the least.  The outside venue was really cool.  There were Christmas style lights hanging above that would turn many different colors.  It was also attached to a restaurant called Stubb's Barbecue.  There was a band playing inside and the food looked amazing (unfortunately by then I was strapped for cash and did not feel like losing an arm for some good grub).

Then of course there was the  bands.  Before I go on, I am not much of a hipster, and this was a very hipsteresque concert.  Therefore my opinion will inevitably be tainted for the worse.  My friend spent most of the time educating me on all things hipster and on all of the different types of hipster.  It was fascinating to say the least.  Nevertheless the music wasn't really my thing.  In addition the music simply was too "coffee housish" to make a good concert in my opinion.  Perhaps if the venue was less concert and more coffee house style it would have been better.  Anyway, I did find the second band, "Moon Doggies," to be a good fit, probably because they were a louder faster paced band.  Unfortunately the Head and the Heart disappointed me.  In addition the fans disappointed me.  It was a really stiff concert, and I do not really understand the point of standing stiffly for hours on end.  I wanted to move around and even dance, but nooooo, that was not acceptable at this hipster paradise.  Needless to say, I have not come anywhere near being converted to hipsterism.

Then the next day I went home with my friend.  I really enjoyed it, and would love to live there someday maybe.  In addition to everything I have mentioned the city is surprisingly affordable for such a cool place.  $800/month is typical rent in the city, which would be unheard of in most cities with cool downtown areas.  Also, San Antonio is only a bit over an hour away, and there is tons to do there as well.  I have been sold on Austin's awesomeness.  Check it out for yourself and see what you think.  Unless you despise all things city, I guarantee you will not be disappointed.

Austin baby!

Yeah thats Austin, no big deal.

Just giving everyone a heads up!  I will be traveling to the grand capital of Tejas: Austin!  I am going today and will not be back till Sunday.  Therefore, I probably will not be able to post anything until Sunday afternoon.  I hope that does not bum anyone out too much (the few of you there are that regularly read my ramblings).  However, Austin is quite the hip city I have heard, and I intend to enjoy its hipness very much.  I recall reading actually in Forbes magazine that one year they rated Austin the most hip city in the United States for young people.  I am a young person, therefore obviously Austin will be amazing.  I have been there before for a swim meet, but have never really explored the city in all its glory.  I hope to come back a hipper Texan than before.  See you all laters! And make sure to check back Sunday!

"Born This Way"

I would just like to rail against a common myth in American society.  Okay, many hold to the belief that there are the extroverts and the, dun dun DUN!, introverts.  Extroverts basically have all the fun while Introverts are boring, bland, quiet, shy, etc. etc. etc. people that are just inherently incompetent at socializing.  This is the main problem I have with this dichotomy.  Everyone thinks it is an inherent trait, they think the ability to spew words out of your mouth is an inherent trait.  This is patently false, and I will explain why.

This is a dumb picture, and
all that it tells you to do is exactly
what you should not do.  

First, the terms introvert and extrovert actually have nothing to do with how social you are.  All they have to do with is where you get your energy (so called).  Do you get it from hanging around people? Or do you get it from down time by yourself? As with everything, most are not clearly one way or the other, but a mix of both.  However, somehow these terms have been coerced to describe how social people are.  People are then diagnosed as social or anti-social.  You are simply born that way.

The fact is from my experience is that it is usually environmental factors that determine if one is supposedly anti-social.  I know personally that I lacked confidence around strangers and people I did not know for the longest time.  Even when I first went to college I was that way.  Every time I got entangled in a new group they always labelled me an "introvert" and "anti-social." Once I received those dreaded labels, friendship with any of them became impossible.

I felt two pressures.  One, no one would talk to me, because since I was "anti-social," there was no point in talking to me.  Even if they did, they never expected a response.  If I gave a response that seemed out of step with their perception of me as anti-social, they would instantly cast some remark about my aggressive nature to shun me back into my proper place, as an introvert.  It was painful, because I would simply shutdown.  I would eventually accept what seemed my lot and life and fulfill the role they gave me.  Once I was deemed an introvert, I felt there was no escape. 

If your "introverted" friend looks like
this all the time, then maybe, just maybe,
there is something else wrong despite some "inherent"
inability to speak.

The second pressure was internal.  Eventually, I would simply give up out of anger.  I wanted stronger friendships with them, but they did not want that.  I knew any time I made a comment it would be ignored, or not treated as equally legitimate to their conversations, or taken the wrong way, therefore I quit.  I would suffer through hanging with them whenever I had too, but once I could get away and hang out with my true friends that let me be myself, I would.

It might sound strange that I would be "cast" into a role, like for a play, but that is always what happens, and you know it.  You have to compete initially in any friend group to see who fits what role. I am certain that you have acted differently around different people.  You act differently to a cashier than you do to your best friend.  You act differently depending on who you hang out with, and what the dynamics of that group are.  Therefore is it so hard to understand?  Basically, I "lost" out of fitting in to the group several times.  I was not confident enough, or loud enough initially, therefore I was deemed unfit to be one of them.  Several of you won those initial social competitions, and became the "leader."  Yet I am sure you have not always been the leader.  You won that position.

Just think about it, you can act differently in your friend groups, but you do not.  Why? Its obvious, because your friends would find it weird if all of a sudden you did not act "like yourself." If you were a jokester but started acting serious all of a sudden, people would find it weird.  They would not know how to respond to you.  The same happened with me!  Now don't you understand!  I wanted so badly to be an "extrovert" but I knew if I did people would think it was weird.  I had the same social pressures you have had, and we both have responded the same way.  We both did not act the way we wanted, we acted the way others expected us to act.

Meanwhile, I have been an "extrovert" around those that I accepted me the way I was and were willing to get to know me despite my lack of confidence or loudness.  Later I opened up more with them and have great friendships now.  If you video recorded me with them, I would seem an entirely different person.  You thought you knew me, but you didn't.  You never did frankly, and most of you never will.    I am now more social than I used to be, and do not find it as hard to be accepted as I once did, but I still feel bitter about my past.  I still feel bitter that a stupid label pigeonholed me into a box of how people saw me and how I was allowed to act.

I will give a vivid example of all I have talked about.  I went to a banquet once.  Everyone at the table basically ignored me.  Conversation with any of them came off as awkward because they made it awkward.  See, I was an introvert, therefore they treated me like one.  Conversations with me were to be short and sweet and to the point.  The burden of continuing a conversation always laid with me.  It was exhausting.  I had tried, and I decided eventually to give up.  However, one guy at the table I had never met before.  He had no stigma attached to me.  I struck up a conversation with him, and it felt great! I was normally engaging someone like normal human beings do! That moment proved to myself there was nothing inherently wrong with me or my ability to socialize.  In fact, I was more social towards him than everyone else at my table, all the supposed "extroverts."

Everyone is capable of being happy,
not just extroverts.

People are not inherently introverted.  They become that way in a certain group.  Either the person does not fit in well with them because he does not have many common points of interest to connect with them, or he struggles with confidence issues, and finds it hard to open up quickly with people, or both!  These are problems that he suffers.  Yet, only a select few I have met ever tried to get to know me despite that.  Most were so fixated on the social competition, trying to look cool, and trying to impress girls (or guys) that they simply ignored me.  After all, trying to get to know me would not win them any cool points.

Therefore, stop labeling people as introverted.  Give them a chance to come out of their box.  Maybe hang out with them one on one to try and draw them out.  I have done that with others I knew that suffered from a lack of confidence.  When I got to know them I found they were really cool people.  If I had dismissed them because they were not initially cool and social, I never would have found out how awesome they really were.  Therefore, recognize that it is a problem.  Recognize that most people like that are not actually as quiet as they may appear to you.  If they are not talking, there is a reason.  It is not simply because they do not like to talk.  Everyone likes to talk, it is a natural normal human thing.  Go out today, and instead of saying hi and walking by a person you "know" that is "introverted," ask them to hang out with you one day.  However, above all, when you do hang out with them, try to erase the stigma you have attached to them and intentionally try to treat them like you would anyone else.  They would appreciate it, and soon you would find yourself making a great friend that you never thought could be that great.

The Misplaced Debate on Education

The American education system at the high school level is ridiculously archaic and backward.  There is no other way to say it.  The last time we were ranked compared to other countries, we were 14th in reading, 17th in science, and 25th in mathematics (The US Can Learn From Other Countries Education Systems).  We are the most prosperous and wealthy nation on earth yet our high school education ranks only in the middle of developed countries.  There truly is no excuse for this.  America must find a way to fix this pathetic predicament.  Our schools do fine at the elementary level, but by highschool they suffer terribly.  This altogether makes no sense since the good ol' U.S. of A. rocks with our colleges.  I counted, and out of the top 100 colleges, 31 are in the United States (according to U.S. News World's Best Universities 2011).  We are not slouching at the college level, but for some reason at the level between elementary and college we suck.  We need to find out why, and then we need to fix it.

Yet, the debate has been entirely misplaced.  On one hand, you have liberals who say (as always), "Spend! Spend! Spend!" And you have conservatives who simply turn a blind eye to the problems of our education system.  Their kid after all is getting a great education, at their great expensive school district or Private Christian School.  Why care about the vast majority which is getting a poor education when your child has it fine? Both responses are wrong.  I will explain why.

Too often this is the focus of our education
debate.  The focus should be on structural
reform, not dollars spent.

Liberals will tell you that we simply do not spend enough on education.  This is bullshit.  We spend on average per child more than any other country in the world.  According to a study done at USC (University of Southern California), America spends an average of $7,743 per student.  Meanwhile, the 2nd highest spender was the UK at 5,834.  Japan Spent on average only $3,756 per child! We spend the most but get worse results.  The highest ranked in math test scores spent, Finland, scored 548 out of 600 on average while Finland spent on average $5,653.  Compare that to the average U.S. score of 474 out of 600, and we pour far more money into our kids!  Its even more bizarre to think that Japan scored on average 523 out of 600 spending as little as they did! The problem is clearly not the amount of spending, then what is it? (Feel free to check out the website I drew these facts from! It has a nifty diagram explaining it all)

Meanwhile, more often than not, your conservatives either opt out or think their is nothing wrong with it.  Their response will depend on their financial means.  If they do not have much money and are in a poor school district, they will opt for homeschool.  If they do have money and are in a poor school district, they will opt for private school.  If they have money and are in a great top of the line best 10% what have you school district, they will send their kids there and wonder why anyone could ever think our education system is bad.  I will tell you why!  Only you and 10% of the nation can get that education.  Those who happen to live in the great school districts (which also happen to be the most expensive neighborhoods, because our education is payed through property taxes), will indeed get a great expensive education.  However everyone else who cannot afford to live in those neighborhoods will not.  

The reason this is the case, is because the whole educational infrastructure is set up that way.  Basing it on property taxes has placed a new hidden price tag on your home.  It is no longer just a home, it is also your source for education. Bigger is always better in other words.  Big house = big education.  The rich of course do not mind it being that way, therefore they have no incentive to change it.  However everyone else should have a problem with this.  Just because education has been provided traditionally via property taxes does not mean it has to be that way.  It does not have to be that way, and it should not be that way.  Effectively it has made your education dependent on how expensive of a neighborhood you live in, and that is just wrong.

While there are other propositions for structural reform, like pouring property taxes into a collective state fund that distributes the fund equitably through the school districts, I prefer a different reform.  I believe that ultimately a voucher system would be more fair and more efficient.  Collectivizing funds would create the most equitable system, but it would do nothing to improve efficiency.  We need to get more bang for our buck, and a voucher system would allow that.  

A Voucher would allow you to pick your school,
much as a gift card allows you to pick your gift.

A voucher system would give each family a state-sponsored voucher of x dollars, which then can be spent on any school the family wishes.  Schools would be allowed to compete for students.  Competition in turn, would help force schools to weed out stupid practices that are preventing our kids from receiving the best education.  You could still have standardized tests, but allow the schools to introduce new innovative approaches to learning that could cut costs and boost student performance.  If schools are not doing their best to innovate, parents will elect to put their kids elsewhere.  Its standard economics 101, and it will transform education into a dynamic enterprise if initiated.

There are a few problems people have addressed, which I shall attempt to resolve.  First, will schools be allowed to charge what they want?  They is a tough question.  If you want it to be more equitable, no.  If you want more efficiency, yes. Markets operate most efficiently when it is allowed to determine the price.  If we want to be at the forefront of innovating education, we will have to allow schools to charge different rates.  However, personally I do not like the idea of people not being able to attend a school because they cannot afford it.  This would inevitably lead to the same inequitable education system we had before.  Yes, it would be more efficient and everyone would benefit as a result, however it will still shut out students out of great schools.  Instead, I would prefer a slightly more equitable in the middle approach where each school has the same price tag (the voucher price), but then students can perhaps purchase special education packages within that school.  

Another question is how much leeway schools will have to accept and reject students? I believe obviously that no discrimination should be allowed in the system.  I do not even believe that religious schools should be allowed to join the system and discriminate who they let in based on religious affiliation.  Schools can of course reject the voucher system, but then parents will not be able to utilize their voucher when sending students there.  This does not mean schools cannot choose who to let in, but they will only be allowed to based off of academic or extracurricular achievement, not on any characteristics that are not merit based.  

Nevertheless these are all particulars.  The system itself would produce astounding results if allowed to work.  Now, that assumes people allow it to work.  There are things the government cannot do if it wishes the voucher system to succeed.  It cannot tell schools what to do.  It can have standardized tests by which people can gauge a school's performance versus others, but it should not be allowed to determine curriculum for schools or anything else education related that would promote stagnation and hinder innovation.  In addition, all schools must be eligible for the voucher system if they agree to certain limited criteria, such as non discrimination.  They includes religious institutions.  Excluding schools based off their teachings will stifle innovation.  Indeed, that is another bonus I see coming from this.  The government would no longer have a monopoly on our kids minds.  It has with the current system, since it tells schools what they can and cannot teach.  It would not with my ideal voucher system.  Ideas will perish or thrive based on how plausible they are, not from a government enforced proliferation or suffocation.

Just think about it, we already allow this at the college level, yet to an even greater extent.  So why not allow it at the high school level? What we have been doing is clearly not working.  More money will not fix it, the problem is clearly structural.  While the structural change I propose would not in itself reform education, it would create a more conducive innovative and competitive atmosphere where education will be more open to creativity and change, instead of the stagnant ailing beast it is today.  

Coke vs. Pepsi

There is one question that has loomed large in the minds of Americans for decades.  This question has divided Americans for a long time, and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.  It is not whether to vote Democrat or Republican.  It is not if whether to eat a hotdog or a hamburger.  Yes, it is not even whether you are on team Edward or team Jacob.  The question that racks everyone's mind, that splinters our noggins in half, is whether to drink Coke or Pepsi.  These Soda/Pop/Coke/Carbonated Beverage makers (I shall use carbonated beverage from now on to be politically correct and to prevent from offending anyone's local and/or regional cultural variations in their terminological choices) have been in a state of war, dedicated to eachother's destruction, since the dawn of time.  It is important that every American makes an informed decision on which way they will vote next time you go to the grocery store.  Afterall, the implications of your vote, are indeed tremendous.

Coca-cola has always been the top dog, knows
it, and therefore has always felt smugly
confident about itself, never changing for nobody!

A little history is necessary to understand the true scope of this rivalry.  Coca-cola was first invented by the pharmacist John Stith Pemberton in good ol' Columbus, Georgia in 1886.  The brand Coca-cola was then bought and incorporated in 1892.  Ever since then, Americans have been enjoying themselves to a steady steam of carbonated flavored goodness.  Coca-cola, the corporation, on the other hand, has continued to prosper, drawing various drinks into its dynasty through acquisitions and expanding its market into every corner of the world.  There are few things as universally recognizable like a good ol' bottle of Coca-cola.

Now Pepsi was always the misfit cousin.  Coca-cola always got all the girls.  The story of Pepsi will make you feel a little sorry for him.  Its a story of big dreams and a massive insecurity complex.  It was first created as "Brad's drink" (I know sounds like some hipster drink you would find at Starbucks or something) by a certain Caleb Bradham in 1898.  In 1903, suffering from insecurity issues, it renamed itself Pepsi-cola to make itself look more like its more popular cousin.  Nevertheless, it shot off quickly and soon was satisfying Americans tastebuds all over the nation.  In 1909 it received its first endorsement by the celebrity/race car driver Barney Oldfield, who called it "A bully drink...refreshing, invigorating, a fine bracer before a race."

Pepsi, suffering from insecurity issues, has
tried to pretend its hip and cool to make up
for its lack of confidence.

Even though it was off to a good start, it would soon enter times of sorrow.  It filed bankruptcy during the great depression, and could have been bought by Coca-Cola a number of times (I bet Coca-Cola is really regretting it didn't now he he).  However, it quickly rebounded, as it always does, by dissing on Coca-cola.  It made a new 12-ounce bottle that cost the same as Coca-cola's 6-ounce bottle, naturally people liked the sound of that.  Ever since then the rivalry has been intense, both looking to undercut the other at every opportunity.  In the 70's Pepsi started the "Cola Wars" claiming that the results of a taste test proved people prefer Pepsi. Pepsi has constantly tried to reinvent itself, trying to measure up to its rival, but has constantly fallen short.  Coca-cola still has a considerable edge over it in market share despite Pepsi's best efforts.  Pepsi seems destined to always be the misfit cousin.

All this history to bring us to today.  Now of course the rivalry has much more at stake than these two drinks.  There are all the other drinks the two corporations sell.  Mountain Dew has always been a big seller for Pepsi, while Sprite has been a big seller for Coca-cola.  Americans must make informed choices about these brands.  Pepsi for example owns Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Pizza Hut.  Mountain Dew will always be the gamers' choice of soda.  Meanwhile Coca-cola clearly tastes better.  I have yet to meet someone that actually prefers the taste of Pepsi versus the taste of Coke.  Yet when it comes to the other brands offered on the side, I would say Pepsi wins, mainly because of Mountain Dew.  Its a toss up for me, but in the end I vote for Pepsi, mainly because I like Mountain Dew.  Plus, I like rooting for the little guy.  Pepsi needs the moral support.  It needs some encouragement.  He has never felt good enough, lets make him feel better about himself.

So anyways!  Now you guys should all vote!  It would interesting to get a tally of what you guys think!    Just comment below this article with either "Pepsi" or "Coca-cola" as your answer!  Remember to consider them as corporate entities, and all the brands they sell, not just their namesakes.  Alright! Let the vote begin!


1 vote Pepsi baby!

Sports Politics

Politics is divisive, but you know what is more divisive than politics? Sports Politics! As a former athlete, I have lived through the trauma of sports politics.  Few things incur man's scorn like their kid not getting to play, or their kid not getting the proper training.  And of course, sports parents always know best how to train their child.  They always know that their kid deserves to play in every game.  And as in every other area of our lives, when a team does not live up to their expectations, which it rarely does, the parent pulls their kid from the team.  Tis a ruthless cycle, for thouest insane soccer mom will neverest understandeth that nothingeth everest perfecteth.  Nevertheless, they truly believe that all shall be sacrificed for the small shot, nay infinitesimal shot, that their kid may ever so slightly perhaps maybe possibly go pro or to the olympics.  Sports politics reveal what is wrong with our society in so many ways.  Indeed, few things show how dark our hearts are like sports politics.

Shooting for the stars is great, just be realistic and
do not encourage bad behavior.

I am not saying that parents should not have their children shoot for the stars.  I am all for that.  I am all for encouraging your children to pursue their dreams.  However, I do have a problem with the whatever it takes mentality that some of these parents have.  Far too often I have seen parents backstab coaches and drop relationships they and their child had cultivated just so their child can have a superb sports career.  Sad thing is, usually they moved to a team that was by all measures no better! 

This in fact happened to my club swim team.  It used to be a big team, and many really good swimmers were on it.  However, all the parents, and many swimmers too, were sooo anal about how coach ran the team.  Yes, Coach made some mistakes every now and then.  He did not always notify everyone properly if a swim practice would be canceled for instance.  He was a little disorganized at times.  However, he was a great coach.  There is no doubt in my mind about that.  He had coached many good swimmers so college level D-1 swimming.  But noooooo, that was not good enough (since nothing would ever be good enough for half these parents).  They were loyal to the assistant coach, and when he left, 2/3rd of the team left with him.  It was dumb, there was no reason for it.  However, in their professional opinion they made the best move.  Who cares if they pushed everyone out of the way and ripped apart a team community for it, its all about their chosen child.  

Another example just like it happened earlier to the team.  We had an assistant coach come on the team.  He was great.  He fixed my breaststroke better than anyone before or since.  He set me ready for takeoff when I started picking up the yardage.  However, he was not good enough.  Parents complained.  My coach let him look for another job, and guess what he got? He got an assistant coach job over at University of Michigan! (That is where Michael Phelps swam for college in case you did not know) Wow, way to go soccer moms (and dads), destroying sports teams since 1776.  

The fact of the matter is that parents think they know better than the coaches what their child needs, but they don't!  It is as frustrating as hell to see, because parents have had no training to know what their child needs.  I have been an assistant coach, and I constantly had this one mom that worked with us question my judgment all the time.  It was ridiculous because she never even saw what her son did.  She was upset he was not going as fast (in swimming) as she wanted.  I bit my tongue, but I wanted to say if you actually go him to practice on time, and if he was not lazy and jumped into the pool on time, then maybe the punk face would go faster! But nooooo, there was no way the blame laid with her perfect son.  It must have laid with none other than me, the ignoramus assistant coach.  

Some parents actually look like this when
they scold their kids over sports.

One more issue related to this is the overzealous participation of the parent's in their kid's sports.  There is nothing wrong with being involved, but tooooo many parents take it overboard.  Some rebuke their children any time they do not measure up to their parent's (usually unrealistic) timeline of how fast their kid should be.  I have seen parents confront their own kids and rebuke them for not going as fast as their friends.  Nothing disgusts me more than when I see that.  Some parents intentionally try to create bitter rivalries between their son and his friends.  They compare to make the kid feel inferior, like unless he goes that fast he is not worth anything.  Kids should be involved in sports because they enjoy them, not because they want to earn their parents love.  If your kid feels they have to drop time or win a game or make a play to feel loved by you, there may be something wrong, just maybe.

All of this is why it is easy to see how dark people truly are.  Their smiles fade quickly when dinner time comes around.  Then, they congregate like a pack of wolves, ready to devour their foes.  Sports was meant to be a recreational activity, not a chance to tear each other's eyes out.  Competition is good within limits.  Competition should not be ruthless, kids should not be pushed to do anything to win.  Such habits will be carried on in life with disastrous results.  Yes, encourage your kid to play a sport.  Confront your coach if you have a problem.  However, do not base your kid's value off of his performance, and do not conspire behind the coach's back when you should talk about whatever it is to his face.  Sports are not the end all, be all.  Do not make them that.