Monday, March 5, 2012
Science vs Religion vs Politics: Do They Always Have to Fight?
It's amazing how many kids in my Humanities are surprised when our Christian professor tells us that people who reject Evolution are ignorant, and that evolution neither disproves God nor what the bible says about the Creation. The bible says God first created living things in the sea and then on land. Evolution says life was first there was life in the oceans and then on land. Ok, so those points can coexist. Next God took the seventh day off (first four days were the forming of the stars and planets) and then sometime after that God created man. And in evolution, there was life way before man came about. The Bible says god formed man in the image of himself, out of the dust of the ground a breathed life into him. Evolution says humans and other primates came from a common ancestor. Who's to say that God didn't take that common ancestor to form man, and then let the rest progress naturally to the primate family? You see, people get worked up because they view science as attacking their faith, that it is solely trying to disprove God. What they don't realize is that science is unable to touch the issue of whether God exists. You see, science works in the realm of the natural. They can only test the things on this planet that we can touch, see, or measure. God lives in the super natural, in the things we can't see, touch, or measure. So Evolution can't say that since the Bible didn't mention evolution, that means it is factually incorrect and therefore God doesn't exist. All it can say is evolution happened and maybe God is involved, or maybe not. They can't make any claims about God's existence or presence.
Another thing Atheists like to tear apart about the Bible is Noah's flood because there is no geological evidence of a great flood that ravished the whole world. There is no uniform layer of sediment that contains the same fossils that goes all the way around this world. Plus, at the time that the flood would have happened, the Chinese and Egyptians lost no population and maintained throughout. The also never wrote about a great flood that they all survived through. It is because of this that people love to save religion is wrong and false. They seem to forget that at that time, Noah's people had no way of knowing that the Chinese existed, and that maybe the Great Flood affected the entire area that Noah had known. So what if it wasn't worldwide literally: it could just be that everything he knew had been destroyed. People who take the bible literally are easily offended by even this interpretation. What nobody really considers is that the entire bible is made up of stories that were passed by tongue. The story you knew depended solely on what the person you heard it from said. And when stories get passed by word of mouth, they tend to become bigger and better with less truth to what actually happened. They do, however, retain enough of the original to portray the message of the story. It wasn't until the 1500s, with the invention of the printing press, that Bibles were mass produced meaning there was over a thousands years of orally telling the stories. Granted, there were hand written bibles, but those were few and far between. Also when they became mass produced, they were also translated into languages other than Latin, which led to more minor alterations to the stories. All I'm trying to say here is that yes the Bible may not be 100% accurate as to how stuff happened, but it is completely accurate in the fact that the things happened. So what if it wasn't as massive as what they say, it's still pretty amazing.
As the title indicates, I'm going to bring politics in to this. Why? Because everything involves politics now a days. Like being political correct means not hurting other people's feelings. Well I generally don't care what people think about me or what I believe. Yeah, so what if I'm Catholic. And a Republican. It doesn't mean I'm against handing out condoms, against gay marriage, and against teaching evolution. We should encourage the availability of condoms in schools because kids are going to have sex no matter what. Teaching strictly abstinence in school isn't a good idea, because since kids are going to have sex either way, they would tend to have unprotected sex because they weren't taught about condoms or anything. Granted, in today's society they should know about them anyway, but it is best to be safe and inform them. Being informed doesn't make them more likely to be immoral and make them make bad choices. It actually does the opposite usually. If they know about other options other than what is considered right, people usually aren't as tempted to try the bad. As for gay marriage, I'll sum it up since I mentioned it in an early post. Marriage shouldn't be the term used as to not upset religious people and to give homosexuals equal rights. Civil Unions should be the thing and everyone should be able to get them. And we should teach evolution because it really doesn't conflict with creationism as much as people believe it to. Just because you believe something to be wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal. And this is something some politicians *cough* Rick Santorum *cough, cough* don't understand (He's not the only one, he's just the most relevant). In politics it is necessary to keep your personal beliefs present, but not foremost. You are representing millions of people who don't see eye to eye with you on everything. In government you have to make compromises, and you have to make decisions that benefit everyone as a whole, not just people who support you. That is when government works best and is most efficient. America doesn't seem to get this. The two party system is terrible. It automatically pits two sides against each other, and if you agrees with the other and/or compromise, you are seen as weak or a flip-flopper. There really should be no parties and should just be people individually running for each position. That would make the most sense, and take away most of the favoring of certain groups. So in government, a strong moral backing is important, whether it be from society, church, or family, but when it comes down to making decisions it should be what is best for all that is predominant and not your personal beliefs.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, hopefully you didn't stop halfway through out of frustration or being offended. Follow me on the Twitter (@JVanderah20) if you want short snippets that may or may not make sense on a daily basis. But fair warning, my mind can be scary. Oh and just because a guy is being nice to you, doesn't mean he's creepy. He's just being nice. Peace out girl scouts. High Fashion.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Cutting Education Makes None Sense
A lot of things have changed since my last post, like my major (Actuarial Sciences->Considering Electronic Media->Mathematics Teaching), I shaved my face and cut my hair (There is SO much hair in my trash can right now), and their are talks of change here at UNI in the forms of NISG elections and budget cuts. One of the biggest issues here with the budget cuts is the possibility of cutting funding for the Price Lab Middle School. The Price Lab is used by the College of Education to help give Education majors hands-on field experience in addition to the student teaching. In today's economy, I can see why the budget is a big issue, but I have an issue with where they are taking the money away from.
What most people don't realize is that education is vital to any economy. If you are well educated, you are more likely to be successful in life, make a lot of money, and then spend all that money. The more trained in your area you are, the more successful you will be. That's why when you pick which school to go to, you should pick a school that has a good department in your area of study rather than how good the football team is. If that were the way you were supposed to do it, I'd be at Iowa not here at the wind tunnel that is UNI. The thing is education needs most is for the kids to have a drive to work hard and learn, and the teachers have to have a passion for what they teach (in addition to knowing the material, of course). People think that the educational system is going down the toilet because of the quality of teaching, that the teachers aren't as inspired as the days of old, and that the kids are failing because the teacher hates them. That is bullshit. 100% Grade A shit from a bull's ass. The biggest thing wrong with education is that the students slack off and generally don't care about school. Plus, the schools encourage the teachers to teach to a test, to make sure every kid passes even if they don't deserve to, and that the teacher goes out of their way to make sure that every kid gets a good grade. When it comes down to it, school administrators (and the Government, too (we'll get to them later)) only care about test scores (ACT, SAT, PSAT, ITEDS, ITBS, etc.) and graduation rates. If they actually cared about the students' success, they wouldn't make such a big deal about standardized tests or even care where we ranked in the world. All the USA wants is to crank out as many graduates who can read as we can. The problem with education isn't that the teachers suck, it's that we produce something different from what we want.
Another major problem in education is the parents. Even in the late nineties when I started school, if a kid was failing the parents would be upset with their child and make sure they were trying before going to the teacher. The somewhere in middle school, the mind set of the parent changed. All of a sudden it became if Jimmy got an F, it was obviously the teacher's fault because there is no way little Jimmy could get anything below an A. What the parents don't know is Jimmy hasn't been doing any homework, didn't study for tests, and play Xbox for 6 hours every night instead of his schoolwork. Parents need to remember that it isn't a teacher's job to babysit. A teacher is supposed to educate a student in their subject, and make sure that once they know the material they can apply it to the real world and understand it even better. And just because a student can win the football team games doesn't mean he gets a free pass on a diploma. It's called "student-athlete" for a reason, you have to be a good student before you can play
What most people don't realize is that education is vital to any economy. If you are well educated, you are more likely to be successful in life, make a lot of money, and then spend all that money. The more trained in your area you are, the more successful you will be. That's why when you pick which school to go to, you should pick a school that has a good department in your area of study rather than how good the football team is. If that were the way you were supposed to do it, I'd be at Iowa not here at the wind tunnel that is UNI. The thing is education needs most is for the kids to have a drive to work hard and learn, and the teachers have to have a passion for what they teach (in addition to knowing the material, of course). People think that the educational system is going down the toilet because of the quality of teaching, that the teachers aren't as inspired as the days of old, and that the kids are failing because the teacher hates them. That is bullshit. 100% Grade A shit from a bull's ass. The biggest thing wrong with education is that the students slack off and generally don't care about school. Plus, the schools encourage the teachers to teach to a test, to make sure every kid passes even if they don't deserve to, and that the teacher goes out of their way to make sure that every kid gets a good grade. When it comes down to it, school administrators (and the Government, too (we'll get to them later)) only care about test scores (ACT, SAT, PSAT, ITEDS, ITBS, etc.) and graduation rates. If they actually cared about the students' success, they wouldn't make such a big deal about standardized tests or even care where we ranked in the world. All the USA wants is to crank out as many graduates who can read as we can. The problem with education isn't that the teachers suck, it's that we produce something different from what we want.
Another major problem in education is the parents. Even in the late nineties when I started school, if a kid was failing the parents would be upset with their child and make sure they were trying before going to the teacher. The somewhere in middle school, the mind set of the parent changed. All of a sudden it became if Jimmy got an F, it was obviously the teacher's fault because there is no way little Jimmy could get anything below an A. What the parents don't know is Jimmy hasn't been doing any homework, didn't study for tests, and play Xbox for 6 hours every night instead of his schoolwork. Parents need to remember that it isn't a teacher's job to babysit. A teacher is supposed to educate a student in their subject, and make sure that once they know the material they can apply it to the real world and understand it even better. And just because a student can win the football team games doesn't mean he gets a free pass on a diploma. It's called "student-athlete" for a reason, you have to be a good student before you can play
Picture of the modern parent (via my cousin Matt (who is a teacher) and George Takei's Facebook)
If I haven't gotten my point across yet or you are completely lost, let me sum it up for you here. The problem with education doesn't lie with the teacher's training or work ethic. It lies with the expectations of the government and the parents. Just because you love your kid doesn't mean that they should automatically pass. And education isn't about out scoring China on a standardized test. It is about making sure the kids have an understanding of Math, Science, Social Studies, and English and are able to use it in every day life.Cutting funding for teacher training programs isn't going to make education better. In fact, it will only make it worse. The more experienced the teacher is, the better they are in the classroom. The focus needs to be on our perception of education. I don't know what their plans for the budget cuts are, but cutting the Price Lab's funding is not a good decision.
Keep this in mind in the upcoming NISG elections if you are a student at UNI. My friend Wes Jones and I are running as write in candidates to represent the College of Education. There are three open seats for the COE, and we are the only two running that I know of. With issues like these being discussed, the COE really needs to be represented. Be sure to vote February 28-29 if you are a member of the COE. You don't have to vote for me or Wes, but make sure that we are represented in next years NISG body.
If you want to keeps up on my thoughts more frequently (they get more disturbing and nonsensical the less I think it out) follow me on Twitter @JVanderah20. You can find me on Facebook, but I'll probably only add you if I know you. I post again when something new bothers or excites me. Peace out Girl Scout!
Thursday, February 2, 2012
The Story of Rick
Sup dawgs, today I come baring a gift. This gift, however, is not a material item. No, my friends, it is a story. The story of how DPBE's latest video came to be. It follows a fictitious student, Rick Vester, who is a fifth year freshman at UNI. Rick came to be when my good friend Robert Casey Hostert came back with a wig. I have no idea how he came to posses such an item, but when he put it on he looked like a stoner. Not just any stoner, an incredibly stupid stoner. Cole added that he looked like some whose name should be Rick, and thus, a star was born. He would wear the wig occasionally, and even convinced some parents that he had been a freshman at UNI for five years, taking a class or two per semester and passing about half of them. That was last school year, but when Casey rediscovered the wig this year, Rick was once again. It wasn't until we were supremely bored one Saturday nigh that we decide to make a mockumentary about his life. After ten minutes of half-ass planning, we spent like 40 minutes filming the goods. Watching it, it should be blatantly obvious that we took only one cut of every scene, I had no idea what Wes was going to say and I was laughing on camera, and we did minor video editing only. But in the end, I believe we made a mildly to extremely entertaining 13.5 minute video. Yes it's a little long, and we maybe shouldn't have put in the section about his childhood that makes you feel sorry for him, but it is still gold nonetheless. Here is the video, and I hope you enjoy the "findings" of investigative reporter Hugh Jass.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Tis the season for... everything
So I'm sitting here in my basement, watching my dvds of House Season 7, with so much going on inside my active head. Thinking of the Christmas season that stores bring out before Thanksgiving happens, but are so quick to forget after December 25th, thinking of the Iowa Caucuses that are wrapping as I type, awaiting starting the new semester at UNI with my new major, and lastly thinking of how hot Olivia Wilde is. Why did they let her leave the show? Anyway, it's been a busy month, and in the beginning of the Caucus/Primary season I thought I'd share some of my political views with the masses and maybe share some unique views. Or I'll just spew a bunch of stuff you've heard before.
-Gay Rights
Here's one that's a hefty topic to talk about. Especially being a conservative and a Catholic, my view may surprise many of you. Personally I do not agree with homosexuality or support it, but at the same time my faith tells me to respect and love all, to treat every one equally, and to leave judgement up to God. So I have a hard time living a double standard where we as a society accept homosexuality and let them live openly, but at the same time we deny them rights and privileges a straight couple can enjoy under our laws. They aren't allowed to make medical decisions about their partner, they aren't allowed to inherit anything if their partner was to pass away, and they aren't allowed some tax benefits as a married couple. Reading this, you must be thinking I'm all for gay marriage. Well not so fast, young grasshopper. The constitution states a separation of church and state, and since marriage is a religious institution, the term marriage should not be a legal term. Granted, people of faith and even some who aren't but believe in traditions could still call it that. So I'm proposing legally there would be no marriage, but civil unions for all, equal rights for all couple homo and hetero. This wouldn't kill all the little girls' dreams of a big wedding in a church. You could still get married and have weddings, it would just be considered a civil union in the eyes of the law. A solution that Christian conservatives would suggest, just because it looks like they support homosexuality. But they should realize that making something legal doesn't mean you support or agree with it. I don't agree with people charging more on their credit card than they have in the bank, but yet if they are willing to risk their financial security on a new tv, this years model of Corvette, and the hippest clothes, that's their decision. If they feel happiest with some one of the same gender, it's not my place to judge or to punish.
Long story short, civil unions for all
-Abortion
This one won't be a shocker. I'm pro-life. They only case where an abortion should be remotely considered is if either the child, the mother, or both are in danger of dying. It's not up to me as to if the mother, or child should be the one saved. If both can't be saved, then it should be up to the family how to go about it.
-Military Presence
I believe we should not have a military presence in any conflict in which we have not declared was. We should not be forcing our hand in how other countries are run and interact with each other. I also, however, don't think it should be total withdrawal. A significant scale back to have a small force and security at our embassies would suffice. And as for NATO and UN forces, and their interaction in conflicts, I believe should be optional for US troops. We should not force our men and women to fight a battle we as a country are not involved in. The world knows what we are capable of militarily, so there is no need to have troops worldwide flaunting our power. If anything all it does is make some countries irritable and annoyed, and may cause more tension than protection.
-The Economy
This is one big mess. There is no one thing to change that can make everything better. So I'll list some points and won't go into too much detail
1. Stop raising taxes. People have more money to then put back into the economy. Plus, they'll have more to save, which actually is better for future growth than spending now
2. Cap government spending as a percent of GDP. We shouldn't spend money we don't have.
3. Cut pork-barrel projects and fluff out of bills in congress. If the states want those projects and funding, they can ask for it instead of handing them money they might need.
4. Congress can't be allowed to set their own salary. Putting amendments on bills to give themselves pay bumps is wrong. Set their salary, make it variable based on inflation and that's it
These are a few ideas to limit spending and help our economy. Of course, these are more geared towards the symptoms because there are so many causes what can't all be solved at once
-Big Government
Another list, ways to stop the government from over-controlling us and out reaching their constitutional powers.
1. Cap the number of terms Representatives and Senators can serve. Politics should not be a life-time gig. The longer they are in office, the more they forget where they came from and what they fought for.
2. We have too many federal departments. So many they overlap authority and have ambiguous ranks in power. We need to cut the number of departments, consolidate them and make them more efficient. This will also effectively cut government spending and help us use our money more effectively. I'd hate to see how much we waste double spending on the same causes just because two departments are doing the same thing.
Now these obviously aren't all the issues or all of what I believe in politics. There were more things I was going to include that I forgot to include because I'm half watching House and have been typing this for and hour and a half. Now it's time to find out who get's the coveted Jonathan Vanderah bump. My support in this years GOP race goes to the Ron Paul.
When it comes down to it, Ron Paul is the candidate I agree with the most. Along with agreement, I believe he is the most viable candidate to beat Obama. He'll give him a run for his money in the young vote, plus he has shown he hasn't changed his views over his stay in congress. Now most Republicans have and issue saying he isn't conservative enough, but maybe it's a good thing he isn't totally conservative. The fact that he has a little liberal in him when it comes to social matters means he has a better chance at bringing congress and the people together to get something done in this country. Besides, he is way more conservative than his opponents make him out to be. they just focus on the few things that he isn't. In the end, I believe he is the best candidate out there right now and our best shot at getting Obama out of office.
Follow me on Twitter @JVanderah20 if you dare. We'll see when I post again and what it'll be about. It surely won't include the B1G's terrible showing this bowl season.
-Gay Rights
Here's one that's a hefty topic to talk about. Especially being a conservative and a Catholic, my view may surprise many of you. Personally I do not agree with homosexuality or support it, but at the same time my faith tells me to respect and love all, to treat every one equally, and to leave judgement up to God. So I have a hard time living a double standard where we as a society accept homosexuality and let them live openly, but at the same time we deny them rights and privileges a straight couple can enjoy under our laws. They aren't allowed to make medical decisions about their partner, they aren't allowed to inherit anything if their partner was to pass away, and they aren't allowed some tax benefits as a married couple. Reading this, you must be thinking I'm all for gay marriage. Well not so fast, young grasshopper. The constitution states a separation of church and state, and since marriage is a religious institution, the term marriage should not be a legal term. Granted, people of faith and even some who aren't but believe in traditions could still call it that. So I'm proposing legally there would be no marriage, but civil unions for all, equal rights for all couple homo and hetero. This wouldn't kill all the little girls' dreams of a big wedding in a church. You could still get married and have weddings, it would just be considered a civil union in the eyes of the law. A solution that Christian conservatives would suggest, just because it looks like they support homosexuality. But they should realize that making something legal doesn't mean you support or agree with it. I don't agree with people charging more on their credit card than they have in the bank, but yet if they are willing to risk their financial security on a new tv, this years model of Corvette, and the hippest clothes, that's their decision. If they feel happiest with some one of the same gender, it's not my place to judge or to punish.
Long story short, civil unions for all
-Abortion
This one won't be a shocker. I'm pro-life. They only case where an abortion should be remotely considered is if either the child, the mother, or both are in danger of dying. It's not up to me as to if the mother, or child should be the one saved. If both can't be saved, then it should be up to the family how to go about it.
-Military Presence
I believe we should not have a military presence in any conflict in which we have not declared was. We should not be forcing our hand in how other countries are run and interact with each other. I also, however, don't think it should be total withdrawal. A significant scale back to have a small force and security at our embassies would suffice. And as for NATO and UN forces, and their interaction in conflicts, I believe should be optional for US troops. We should not force our men and women to fight a battle we as a country are not involved in. The world knows what we are capable of militarily, so there is no need to have troops worldwide flaunting our power. If anything all it does is make some countries irritable and annoyed, and may cause more tension than protection.
-The Economy
This is one big mess. There is no one thing to change that can make everything better. So I'll list some points and won't go into too much detail
1. Stop raising taxes. People have more money to then put back into the economy. Plus, they'll have more to save, which actually is better for future growth than spending now
2. Cap government spending as a percent of GDP. We shouldn't spend money we don't have.
3. Cut pork-barrel projects and fluff out of bills in congress. If the states want those projects and funding, they can ask for it instead of handing them money they might need.
4. Congress can't be allowed to set their own salary. Putting amendments on bills to give themselves pay bumps is wrong. Set their salary, make it variable based on inflation and that's it
These are a few ideas to limit spending and help our economy. Of course, these are more geared towards the symptoms because there are so many causes what can't all be solved at once
-Big Government
Another list, ways to stop the government from over-controlling us and out reaching their constitutional powers.
1. Cap the number of terms Representatives and Senators can serve. Politics should not be a life-time gig. The longer they are in office, the more they forget where they came from and what they fought for.
2. We have too many federal departments. So many they overlap authority and have ambiguous ranks in power. We need to cut the number of departments, consolidate them and make them more efficient. This will also effectively cut government spending and help us use our money more effectively. I'd hate to see how much we waste double spending on the same causes just because two departments are doing the same thing.
Now these obviously aren't all the issues or all of what I believe in politics. There were more things I was going to include that I forgot to include because I'm half watching House and have been typing this for and hour and a half. Now it's time to find out who get's the coveted Jonathan Vanderah bump. My support in this years GOP race goes to the Ron Paul.
When it comes down to it, Ron Paul is the candidate I agree with the most. Along with agreement, I believe he is the most viable candidate to beat Obama. He'll give him a run for his money in the young vote, plus he has shown he hasn't changed his views over his stay in congress. Now most Republicans have and issue saying he isn't conservative enough, but maybe it's a good thing he isn't totally conservative. The fact that he has a little liberal in him when it comes to social matters means he has a better chance at bringing congress and the people together to get something done in this country. Besides, he is way more conservative than his opponents make him out to be. they just focus on the few things that he isn't. In the end, I believe he is the best candidate out there right now and our best shot at getting Obama out of office.
Follow me on Twitter @JVanderah20 if you dare. We'll see when I post again and what it'll be about. It surely won't include the B1G's terrible showing this bowl season.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
I have no creativity towards Man Law titles
So it may have been a while since I last posted (2 months and 2 days), but I have good excuses. Like being a good, hardworking, dedicated student who studies a lot. Ok, so I just forgot because I'm a terrible student. But if anyone who cares asks I study a lot. Any way, today's/this post's topic is about somethings called Man Law, also referred to as the Guy Code. Women have a similar system, but it doesn't count because they all break the rules and besides, they were made by women (it's just a joke ladies, we don't follow your rules either). The Man Law is just a common sense set of rules that you need not be told, because you should know not to do certain things to your fellow man. One in particular applies to interactions with the opposite sex.
A no doubt, clear as day man law is that you do NOT go after the same girl as one of your friends, or acquaintances for that matter. If you know the guy, and you know he likes this girl, you steer clear. If you don't know he likes her, then you're fine and he can't be mad. But if you know and still go after her, well then you are a terrible friend and a douche. It doesn't matter if you think you are a better match, a better person, or you know he is going to be rejected. You just don't do it. Period. Now if you really like the girl, it is acceptable to confront the other man about it and talk it over a head of time. Apologizing after the fact is just you trying to save face, and it is even more pathetic to only say you feel sorry to one of her friends. Now a lot of you may have figured out that someone I know did this to me. Congratulations! Do you want a cookie? WELL TOUGH LUCK! I ate them all so you just win pride. As you can tell by my humor,, I have moved on, but the villain here still thinks I'm mad at him and want to kick his ass so shhhhhh. Don't tell him, that will just ruin my fun.
The real reason why he is now hated by our group of friends is he has a past history of similar situations. Even if you aren't going after a friend's interest, it is still against Man Law to try and hang out with her as much as possible. Especially if while you hang out with her, you make fun of your friend and try to influence her thoughts of your boy. Even if in good heart, it rarely helps and usually worsens the situations. Under NO circumstances is intentionally cock-blocking allowed either. That's just low man. Because when it comes down to it, no man should be allowed any say in another man's love life. Besides the girl's father, of course, because he probably has a shotgun.
So the moral of this rant is simple, don't interfere in a fellow man's quest to find true love, or the tomb of the womb. Which ever he's after. Hopefully love if he's trying that hard. And if you are on the same quest, talk it over as soon as you realize it so you don't lose what's most important. Your friendship, that is. So when it comes down to it, just know, understand, and follow man law. Now I've got to get back to my "studies," even if I'm just studying defenses on Madden. Peace out girl scout -JV
A no doubt, clear as day man law is that you do NOT go after the same girl as one of your friends, or acquaintances for that matter. If you know the guy, and you know he likes this girl, you steer clear. If you don't know he likes her, then you're fine and he can't be mad. But if you know and still go after her, well then you are a terrible friend and a douche. It doesn't matter if you think you are a better match, a better person, or you know he is going to be rejected. You just don't do it. Period. Now if you really like the girl, it is acceptable to confront the other man about it and talk it over a head of time. Apologizing after the fact is just you trying to save face, and it is even more pathetic to only say you feel sorry to one of her friends. Now a lot of you may have figured out that someone I know did this to me. Congratulations! Do you want a cookie? WELL TOUGH LUCK! I ate them all so you just win pride. As you can tell by my humor,, I have moved on, but the villain here still thinks I'm mad at him and want to kick his ass so shhhhhh. Don't tell him, that will just ruin my fun.
The real reason why he is now hated by our group of friends is he has a past history of similar situations. Even if you aren't going after a friend's interest, it is still against Man Law to try and hang out with her as much as possible. Especially if while you hang out with her, you make fun of your friend and try to influence her thoughts of your boy. Even if in good heart, it rarely helps and usually worsens the situations. Under NO circumstances is intentionally cock-blocking allowed either. That's just low man. Because when it comes down to it, no man should be allowed any say in another man's love life. Besides the girl's father, of course, because he probably has a shotgun.
So the moral of this rant is simple, don't interfere in a fellow man's quest to find true love, or the tomb of the womb. Which ever he's after. Hopefully love if he's trying that hard. And if you are on the same quest, talk it over as soon as you realize it so you don't lose what's most important. Your friendship, that is. So when it comes down to it, just know, understand, and follow man law. Now I've got to get back to my "studies," even if I'm just studying defenses on Madden. Peace out girl scout -JV
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
We're not THAT stupid (Well, at least I'm not)
College is a time for getting out on your own, meeting new people, trying new things, and most of all getting a solid, more in depth understanding of a certain subject. So why are colleges and universities making students take basic, entry level classes of subjects that don't pertain to their area of study? Here at the University of Northern Iowa, we have the Liberal Arts Core, or the LAC, which makes us take so many hours in different subject areas. All students have to take basic Math, Reading, Writing, History (Humanities), Music, Cultural, physical Science, Biology, and everyone's favorite Personal Wellness classes. In total, the LAC is between 50-65 credit hours, depending on which classes in each area you pick. I personally had about 20 or so hours of the LAC covered from duel-credit classes in high school, but others aren't as lucky. I don't see why I have to take a music listening or biology class if I'm here as a math major. Some of the Culture and Humanities classes could be interesting, but the ones that would be aren't an option for the LAC, or the LAC courses are their prerequisites. As a logical person, I don't see the reasoning for making a Mathematics major take Composition I. It's obvious that we don't enjoy creativity as much as logic and problem solving by our major choice, so why keep torturing us? Maybe they just want us to raise the class average so they don't look like such an ass as a teacher. And really, nobody cares for Personal Wellness. If I wanted to retake 6th grade Health class, I would have. All the Universities really care about is making sure people won't say they went to their school when losing on "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader." They wouldn't have to, though, if the high schools in this country would actually teach instead of caring about everyone being happy and have fun and attempting to not get sued.
I blame society most for me having to retake my least favorite classes. People don't realize that focusing on feelings and equality ruins efficiency. It may make you feel better on the inside, but caring about yourself hurts everyone else. It isn't racist or sexist if a company highers a white man over a black woman if the white man produces twice as much than the black woman, so why does everyone jump to help the "poor neglected worker" and convince her to sue? Suing does nothing but waste everyone's time and money. If everyone would just work harder, and actually work, this country would be a lot better. But caring about everyone's feelings is only half of protecting high schools from being sued: The other half is having rules galore to protect their own asses. Tardy policies, suspensions, discipline ladders, and other mumbo jumbo no one enforces is more than common in today's American high school. You know what happens if you're late to work? You get fired, not suspended. So make expulsion the punishment in school so people actually go to class and learn instead of skipping half a week and not caring when they show up. Plus if you're gone, you shouldn't be able to spend an hour in the teacher's office having your hand held while they walk you through what you missed. You should just have to learn it on your own like a real person would do.
So maybe if we could fix society to stop babying everyone and teach them how to actually earn stuff, we can be actually happier than we are now, because we'll know we earned what we got. No more free rides, people, you have to earn your money and stop free riding the government. Then maybe welfare won't be as far down the shitter as it is now. And then maybe I won't have to take all these stupid classes that no one ever liked. because in the end all I care about is myself: it's what society taught me to do. maybe I won't be so complaining in my next post? We'll see about that.
I blame society most for me having to retake my least favorite classes. People don't realize that focusing on feelings and equality ruins efficiency. It may make you feel better on the inside, but caring about yourself hurts everyone else. It isn't racist or sexist if a company highers a white man over a black woman if the white man produces twice as much than the black woman, so why does everyone jump to help the "poor neglected worker" and convince her to sue? Suing does nothing but waste everyone's time and money. If everyone would just work harder, and actually work, this country would be a lot better. But caring about everyone's feelings is only half of protecting high schools from being sued: The other half is having rules galore to protect their own asses. Tardy policies, suspensions, discipline ladders, and other mumbo jumbo no one enforces is more than common in today's American high school. You know what happens if you're late to work? You get fired, not suspended. So make expulsion the punishment in school so people actually go to class and learn instead of skipping half a week and not caring when they show up. Plus if you're gone, you shouldn't be able to spend an hour in the teacher's office having your hand held while they walk you through what you missed. You should just have to learn it on your own like a real person would do.
So maybe if we could fix society to stop babying everyone and teach them how to actually earn stuff, we can be actually happier than we are now, because we'll know we earned what we got. No more free rides, people, you have to earn your money and stop free riding the government. Then maybe welfare won't be as far down the shitter as it is now. And then maybe I won't have to take all these stupid classes that no one ever liked. because in the end all I care about is myself: it's what society taught me to do. maybe I won't be so complaining in my next post? We'll see about that.
Monday, August 1, 2011
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 11, 10, 13..
Let's talk some sports, specifically college football, and even more specifically the Big 10 and Big 12. For those of you who aren't familiar with these two conferences, here are the teams in the Big 10 and Big 12:
BIG 10: Leaders Division: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
Legends Division: Illinois, Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Ohio State, Wisconsin
BIG 12: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech.
For those of you who can count, you realize what I'm about to discuss. If you can't count, then you are probably an athlete in one of these two conferences. The names are misleading: the Big 10 has 12 teams and the Big 12 has 10 teams. This will be the first year where the this is the case. The problem lies with the Big 10. The Big 12 had previously done the right, not confusing, thing of changing their name to how many teams they have. In 1996, the conference expanded from 8 teams to 12 (The 4 teams from Texas joined, Baylor and the schools with Texas in their name) and they changed from the Big 8 to the Big 12. The Big 10, however, stopped changing their name a while ago. The last time was in 1950, when Michigan State became the 10th team, is when they changed to the Big 10 from the Big 9. They went astray in 1990 when Penn State joined the conference and they failed to upgrade their name to the Big 11. Now with Nebraska entering the conference this year (They left the Big 12 for a better conference, where as Colorado left the Big 12 for more money and easier competition, for the most part, in the correctly named Pac-12), they are now twice as wrong and bringing utter confusion with the Big 10 and Big 12 being oppositely named.
Now you are probably thinking "What's this kids point here?" and "Is he going to give a possible solution?" The answer is, stop getting ahead of me. Enjoy the ride and I'll get to my point when I want to. Now, I could go down a long, pointless path of tying the confused conferences for why student athletes aren't as bright as other students, but the reality is that's just because they are lazy and rely on their athleticism to get them by and use that for a living. My point here is that the conferences should stop with the numbers in their names. Look at the SEC: no number, so when they add or drop teams no one cares or is confused. It just so happens that the main three conferences in this new realignment, the Big 10, Big 12, and the Pac-12, all have numbers. In fact, these are the only 3 conferences named with a number. So I think that, in the next year or two, that these conferences should make a decision about whether the want to stay with an incorrect number and be the punchlines of terrible jokes, update the number to what is correct, or prepare for the future and change their name to something more bad ass without a number.
Well, that's my take on misnamed collegiate conferences. I know, pretty entertaining and educational, right? Don't get used to it. I foresee myself going on more opinionated, less educational, more entertaining rants in the future. The biggest question is, what will I rant about next? I guess you'll have to wait and see, same as me.
BIG 10: Leaders Division: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
Legends Division: Illinois, Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Ohio State, Wisconsin
BIG 12: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech.
For those of you who can count, you realize what I'm about to discuss. If you can't count, then you are probably an athlete in one of these two conferences. The names are misleading: the Big 10 has 12 teams and the Big 12 has 10 teams. This will be the first year where the this is the case. The problem lies with the Big 10. The Big 12 had previously done the right, not confusing, thing of changing their name to how many teams they have. In 1996, the conference expanded from 8 teams to 12 (The 4 teams from Texas joined, Baylor and the schools with Texas in their name) and they changed from the Big 8 to the Big 12. The Big 10, however, stopped changing their name a while ago. The last time was in 1950, when Michigan State became the 10th team, is when they changed to the Big 10 from the Big 9. They went astray in 1990 when Penn State joined the conference and they failed to upgrade their name to the Big 11. Now with Nebraska entering the conference this year (They left the Big 12 for a better conference, where as Colorado left the Big 12 for more money and easier competition, for the most part, in the correctly named Pac-12), they are now twice as wrong and bringing utter confusion with the Big 10 and Big 12 being oppositely named.
Now you are probably thinking "What's this kids point here?" and "Is he going to give a possible solution?" The answer is, stop getting ahead of me. Enjoy the ride and I'll get to my point when I want to. Now, I could go down a long, pointless path of tying the confused conferences for why student athletes aren't as bright as other students, but the reality is that's just because they are lazy and rely on their athleticism to get them by and use that for a living. My point here is that the conferences should stop with the numbers in their names. Look at the SEC: no number, so when they add or drop teams no one cares or is confused. It just so happens that the main three conferences in this new realignment, the Big 10, Big 12, and the Pac-12, all have numbers. In fact, these are the only 3 conferences named with a number. So I think that, in the next year or two, that these conferences should make a decision about whether the want to stay with an incorrect number and be the punchlines of terrible jokes, update the number to what is correct, or prepare for the future and change their name to something more bad ass without a number.
Well, that's my take on misnamed collegiate conferences. I know, pretty entertaining and educational, right? Don't get used to it. I foresee myself going on more opinionated, less educational, more entertaining rants in the future. The biggest question is, what will I rant about next? I guess you'll have to wait and see, same as me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)