President Obama proposed the concept of free community college last year, and I have to admit that this sounded fantastic, at first. Essentially, the plan is this: tuition will be free of charge to those enrolled in school at least half-time, provided they are working towards a four year degree and maintaining a 2.5 GPA. And, the government is going to foot most of bill, covering a massive 75%, while leaving the remaining 25% for the states. (1) Sounds like a brilliant idea, at least until you think about it for a while. I find it highly unlikely that this plan will actually ever see the light of day, and to that, I say, good.
Now, why would a 34 year old community college student with a mortgage be against free tuition? Well, for starters, nothing is free. The federal government would have to put up $60 billion in the next ten years just to get the ball rolling. The states would have it easy, at a mere $20 billion.(2) I am not very good at math, but how exactly does this work for a nation that has a debt of over $18 trillion?(3) Let that number sink in for a minute. Now think about this number- "57,803,468 – That’s the number of new homes you could buy, given that the average American home costs $311,400" with $18 trillion.(4) We, as a nation, simply cannot afford to do this.
Even if we had a surplus of $18 trillion, I still say we should not offer free tuition. I am a firm believer that if you want something, you have to work for it. Education is expensive, without debate, but tuition at a community college is not unreasonable. On average, the cost of tuition per year is $5,023.(5) If a full-time job does not cover the cost, there are a multitude of scholarships, grants and work-study programs available to those that prove a financial need, not to mention student loans. (though this is a less than desirable option) Many of these programs require effort, as they should. One may have to make high grades, work when it is inconvenient, or even go without luxury items. One just has to be willing to take advantage of the resources already available to them, and perhaps be willing to make some personal sacrifices. It is much harder to give up on a goal when one has worked so hard for it versus when it is simply handed to them.
Let us ponder something else. Community colleges have low success rates as it is. Consider statistics from Austin Community College. "ACC’s four-year average graduation rate is 6 percent, the transfer-out
rate is 34 percent, and the retention rate is 56 percent, according to
the Integrated Postsecondary Data System of the National Center for
Education Statistics".(6) If learning here became tuition-free, the numbers would certainly drop, as those attending for the sole purpose of it being "free" would not be properly invested in their education. And why should they be? It would cost them nothing. Even if they were to graduate or transfer, the GPA requirement almost guarantees minimal effort. 2.5?! I find it almost insulting that people could coast through school, for free, aspiring to be nothing more than average. We would be breeding a nation of (even more)laziness and entitlement.
Now let us pretend the money is not an issue and all that attend go on to graduate. What will this do to the "value" of the degree they obtain? Supply and demand will be gone. It would no longer be enough to just have a degree for a job, because everyone would have one. This will only compound the issue of graduates fresh out of school without a paycheck in sight. (But the degree will look nice in a frame!) Since 2013, the employment rates for recent grads has been improving (except for journalism and communication), but were just anyone able to go to college, it would surely result in another bout of massive unemployment.(7) Can we not focus on job-based training for high school students instead of touting that college is for everyone? You know, put people in jobs where they cannot only be successful, but support themselves?
While the idea of free community college seems very appealing, it can only hurt our nation. Spiraling debt, laziness, entitlement, and unemployment are only a few issues that would result. I think it is admirable that people want to better themselves and choose college as a means to do so. However, it makes little sense to offer free tuition. Work for it, like so many others have done before.
(1)https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/09/fact-sheet-white-house-unveils-america-s-college-promise-proposal-tuition
(2)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-siebold/obamas-americas-college-p_b_6510592.html
(3)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-siebold/obamas-americas-college-p_b_6510592.html
(4)https://generationopportunity.org/articles/2014/12/04/much-18-trillion-worth-really/)
(5)http://www.communitycollegereview.com/avg-tuition-stats/national-data
(6)http://www.austincc.edu/graduation-retention-and-transfer-rates
(7)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/23/unemployment-journalism-major-college-graduate_n_6737496.html
Saturday, March 26, 2016
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
The NSA Knows..What Exactly?
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." ~Thomas Jefferson
My esteemed colleague, Mr. Jordan Call, discussed the National Security Agency's ability to collect information on American citizens in his article "The NSA know when that hotline bling." Mr. Call argues that the NSA is a "necessary evil" that we must accept in the name of security. He makes a thought-provoking argument, yet, I am inclined to disagree with him.
Mr. Call opens his argument by stating that "our rights have been trampled for quite some time now," citing The Patriot Act and the fact it allows the government to spy on us. He also says that he is fine with this intrusion, since he has no criminal record and it could potentially prevent a crime from occurring. I do not have a criminal record, either. That does not mean I have nothing to hide. It is no business of anyone, let alone a government agency "my taste in music, what type of porn I like," or anything else one could glean from my internet history or phone conversations. Mr. Call is right, Americans are not special. We are, however, entitled to the rights afforded to us by the Constitution.
Mr. Call goes on to admit that statistics on actual crime prevented because of this "spying" are hard to find. Funny how that works, is it not? The government does not have to make information easy to access, yet we are expected to sit back while they sift through our lives. Well, while I could not find actual numbers either, it could not have been enough to validate the intrusion. The Patriot Act has expired and been replaced with The USA Freedom Act (oh, the irony of these names!). This comes after President Obama's Presidential Review Group and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board revealed that the information gained from the Patriot Act was not essential to preventing attacks.(1) So, in essence, the ends did not justify the means. The USA Freedom Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act), is intended to correct the issue of privacy violation while still allowing surveillance.(2) Or so "they" say. I wholeheartedly believe this is just another intrusion made to appear less menacing.
Another point made by Mr. Call is the potential for abuse by the "watchers." He does not defend this behavior, instead calls for punishment, but it is not enough for him to discredit the system. He draws a comparison from the police, stating we should "punish those who abuse the system, and realize it is there for our benefit." On this point, I absolutely agree with Mr. Call. The police are there for our benefit. And yes, there are those that take advantage of their position. The same could be said of many professions, from teachers to doctors. It has happened, and it will continue to happen. That is the problem with humans; we can be monstrous creatures. Regardless, I think the police are doing more good than harm, despite what the media would have us believe. Is the NSA? "Spying on current or former significant others" or listening to "sexually explicit" phone calls may not seem like such a major abuse of resources in the grand scheme of things, but what else could they be doing? I am certain we will never know the extent of their capabilities. Another thing to question is whether or not something seemingly innocent can come back to haunt someone later. If there are records of phone calls in which I may have made a comment(either in jest or completely innocent) and someone I have known or know does something deemed criminal, could I be held accountable, an accessory? It seems unlikely, but if the NSA wants to pin you for something, I am betting they have enough information on you to do it, perhaps "10 years" worth. To use Mr. Call's comparison, the cops have the ability to do it all the time. Sometimes it is not even the actual information they have, but the lack thereof. (As a side note, check out this link: Don't Talk to Cops) The police, however, do not have the ease to access data that the NSA has, making it much easier for the NSA to manipulate the facts in which ever way they seem fit.
Ultimately, Mr. Call made me question whether this type of intrusion is justified. If the NSA came to me claiming "you could save a child's life if you would just give us your phone records," I would probably do it. However, I do not believe the intention of the government is to protect. I believe is to control. They use fear as a means to have the American people give up their rights. Sure, it may seem innocuous on the surface(the road to hell is paved with good intentions), and for all I know, it is, though I highly doubt it. Not to mention, anytime data is stored, it can be hacked. I hate to imagine the kind of damage that could be done were this to happen. Despite Mr. Call's efforts, and he did a damn good job, I am not convinced that slowly giving up my civil liberties in the name of safety is the way to go.
(1) ps://www.rt.com/usa/264005-freedom-patriot-act-surveillance/
(2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act
My esteemed colleague, Mr. Jordan Call, discussed the National Security Agency's ability to collect information on American citizens in his article "The NSA know when that hotline bling." Mr. Call argues that the NSA is a "necessary evil" that we must accept in the name of security. He makes a thought-provoking argument, yet, I am inclined to disagree with him.
Mr. Call opens his argument by stating that "our rights have been trampled for quite some time now," citing The Patriot Act and the fact it allows the government to spy on us. He also says that he is fine with this intrusion, since he has no criminal record and it could potentially prevent a crime from occurring. I do not have a criminal record, either. That does not mean I have nothing to hide. It is no business of anyone, let alone a government agency "my taste in music, what type of porn I like," or anything else one could glean from my internet history or phone conversations. Mr. Call is right, Americans are not special. We are, however, entitled to the rights afforded to us by the Constitution.
Mr. Call goes on to admit that statistics on actual crime prevented because of this "spying" are hard to find. Funny how that works, is it not? The government does not have to make information easy to access, yet we are expected to sit back while they sift through our lives. Well, while I could not find actual numbers either, it could not have been enough to validate the intrusion. The Patriot Act has expired and been replaced with The USA Freedom Act (oh, the irony of these names!). This comes after President Obama's Presidential Review Group and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board revealed that the information gained from the Patriot Act was not essential to preventing attacks.(1) So, in essence, the ends did not justify the means. The USA Freedom Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act), is intended to correct the issue of privacy violation while still allowing surveillance.(2) Or so "they" say. I wholeheartedly believe this is just another intrusion made to appear less menacing.
Another point made by Mr. Call is the potential for abuse by the "watchers." He does not defend this behavior, instead calls for punishment, but it is not enough for him to discredit the system. He draws a comparison from the police, stating we should "punish those who abuse the system, and realize it is there for our benefit." On this point, I absolutely agree with Mr. Call. The police are there for our benefit. And yes, there are those that take advantage of their position. The same could be said of many professions, from teachers to doctors. It has happened, and it will continue to happen. That is the problem with humans; we can be monstrous creatures. Regardless, I think the police are doing more good than harm, despite what the media would have us believe. Is the NSA? "Spying on current or former significant others" or listening to "sexually explicit" phone calls may not seem like such a major abuse of resources in the grand scheme of things, but what else could they be doing? I am certain we will never know the extent of their capabilities. Another thing to question is whether or not something seemingly innocent can come back to haunt someone later. If there are records of phone calls in which I may have made a comment(either in jest or completely innocent) and someone I have known or know does something deemed criminal, could I be held accountable, an accessory? It seems unlikely, but if the NSA wants to pin you for something, I am betting they have enough information on you to do it, perhaps "10 years" worth. To use Mr. Call's comparison, the cops have the ability to do it all the time. Sometimes it is not even the actual information they have, but the lack thereof. (As a side note, check out this link: Don't Talk to Cops) The police, however, do not have the ease to access data that the NSA has, making it much easier for the NSA to manipulate the facts in which ever way they seem fit.
Ultimately, Mr. Call made me question whether this type of intrusion is justified. If the NSA came to me claiming "you could save a child's life if you would just give us your phone records," I would probably do it. However, I do not believe the intention of the government is to protect. I believe is to control. They use fear as a means to have the American people give up their rights. Sure, it may seem innocuous on the surface(the road to hell is paved with good intentions), and for all I know, it is, though I highly doubt it. Not to mention, anytime data is stored, it can be hacked. I hate to imagine the kind of damage that could be done were this to happen. Despite Mr. Call's efforts, and he did a damn good job, I am not convinced that slowly giving up my civil liberties in the name of safety is the way to go.
(1) ps://www.rt.com/usa/264005-freedom-patriot-act-surveillance/
(2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Donald Trump...No, No, No
Oh, Donald. Your drama never ceases to amaze. Donald Trump frequently makes remarks about punching people or having them carried out on stretchers. It's kind of his "thing." So, it should not be surprising that Trump almost encountered a punch himself during his rally in Dayton, Ohio. This is following a cancellation in Chicago due to a potential for violence. And that cancellation comes after one of Trump's supporters punched a protester in North Carolina. His protesters and his supporters apparently cannot play nice. Even though Trump seems to approve of such nonsense, this type of behavior is disturbing. Marco Rubio called it "chaos"and "anarchy." Perhaps Donald Trump is just a little too punk rock to be president.
A man that seemingly advocates bullying is not fit to run any country, let alone the U.S. Now, I understand that people are fed up with the way things are. I assume those that support him do so because they believe he can shift the direction in which we are heading. They are entitled to their beliefs. I, however, think that if this man is elected president, our nation will be divided. There will be an "us versus them" mentality, and it could become ugly. Much of this is pure speculation on my part, but if the past events are a sign of things to come, well, then, it does not seem so far-fetched.
This recent outbreak of hysteria is not the only reason I think Trump should not be elected. He likes the "shock factor" of what he says. He prides himself on not being politically correct. Well, to each their own, but what will this do for our country? Sure, everyone will feel they can say exactly what they are thinking. And if someone doesn't like what another says, they can just knock them in the head, right? Wrong. This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple. Make no mistake, the average American will not be held to such low standards. Why Trump is getting away with it, I do not know. But, I do know that I want a president that shows a little respect to those he wishes to govern. I do not want a president that advocates violence, claims those coming into our country are only drug dealers and rapists, or outright brags about his womanizing. It is in poor taste to say such things when you are representing a nation. Comments like these will not "make America great again."
I could be wrong. Trump may be just what this country needs. He is, after all, rich. Let us not forget he had a popular reality T.V. show. These two attributes should trump the fact (pun intended) that he has never actually been elected to public office. Not to fear, however, he would be in good company were he actually elected president. Former President Hoover did just the same, though he was at least a high ranking government official. And what difference does it make that Hoover is considered one of the top ten worst presidents in U.S. history? Surely history will not repeat itself.
Maybe I come across as too sensitive and easily offended. I'm not. I just feel that our nation deserves a president that can offer to 'make America great again" without turning his campaign into one that rivals an episode of "Jersey Shore." One can make a point without being degrading. But what the hell do I know? Trump appears to be doing great in the polls. Obviously, people see something in him that I do not. Perhaps it is his vast wealth or his great plans that he "cannot discuss the details" of. Whatever it is, I sincerely hope the American public wakes up and demands more for themselves and our nation than what Trump is offering.
A man that seemingly advocates bullying is not fit to run any country, let alone the U.S. Now, I understand that people are fed up with the way things are. I assume those that support him do so because they believe he can shift the direction in which we are heading. They are entitled to their beliefs. I, however, think that if this man is elected president, our nation will be divided. There will be an "us versus them" mentality, and it could become ugly. Much of this is pure speculation on my part, but if the past events are a sign of things to come, well, then, it does not seem so far-fetched.
This recent outbreak of hysteria is not the only reason I think Trump should not be elected. He likes the "shock factor" of what he says. He prides himself on not being politically correct. Well, to each their own, but what will this do for our country? Sure, everyone will feel they can say exactly what they are thinking. And if someone doesn't like what another says, they can just knock them in the head, right? Wrong. This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple. Make no mistake, the average American will not be held to such low standards. Why Trump is getting away with it, I do not know. But, I do know that I want a president that shows a little respect to those he wishes to govern. I do not want a president that advocates violence, claims those coming into our country are only drug dealers and rapists, or outright brags about his womanizing. It is in poor taste to say such things when you are representing a nation. Comments like these will not "make America great again."
I could be wrong. Trump may be just what this country needs. He is, after all, rich. Let us not forget he had a popular reality T.V. show. These two attributes should trump the fact (pun intended) that he has never actually been elected to public office. Not to fear, however, he would be in good company were he actually elected president. Former President Hoover did just the same, though he was at least a high ranking government official. And what difference does it make that Hoover is considered one of the top ten worst presidents in U.S. history? Surely history will not repeat itself.
Maybe I come across as too sensitive and easily offended. I'm not. I just feel that our nation deserves a president that can offer to 'make America great again" without turning his campaign into one that rivals an episode of "Jersey Shore." One can make a point without being degrading. But what the hell do I know? Trump appears to be doing great in the polls. Obviously, people see something in him that I do not. Perhaps it is his vast wealth or his great plans that he "cannot discuss the details" of. Whatever it is, I sincerely hope the American public wakes up and demands more for themselves and our nation than what Trump is offering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)