Graduate school is weird. Certainly, it’s to be expected that graduate students should be more proactive in their studies and not waiting for their professors to guide every little step and decision. What’s different is that it can devolve to the point that no one, student nor professor knows what’s going on and that kind of thing can start to take a toll.
About two and a half hours into a leadership class this week the professor started into discussion of an academic paper, one that turns out to be quite luddite on information technology but more on that another time, to which I replied that I was confused because I hadn’t read the expected paper but another one. The reason I had read the other paper was because two weeks earlier we were to select a paper from a list to analyze and critique. That critique was due and the paper mentioned in class was on the list as a competitor for our review. Or so I thought. Since it wasn’t the one I had chosen I figured I didn’t have to read it. After all, I read one chapter in one book, two in another and an academic paper that I wrote a critique and analysis of, I guess it wasn’t enough. Fortunately, every other student who did not read the paper did the same thing I did. The professor was confused that we were confused, why did we not understand the syllabus that he had just revised that day for clarity when they didn’t mention, nor has ever mentioned assignments?
In my other class, business law, there aren’t even any assignments. The syllabus lists readings but there isn’t anything else to do that I can figure out. Class is basically made up of a blow-by-blow of the readings and forced, and not entirely relevant, legal examples from small towns in New Mexico. By reading the book, one effectively renders attendance not all that important if not for the fact that it’s required. There was one assignment. The writing of a legal case brief and presentation based on a case presented in the book and to be delivered at the time the class goes over the subject. Based on the syllabus I turned mine in one week early for review as requested by the professor. There was no response. I asked during the next class (when I thought it was due) and was told that my chapter would actually be a week later and rest assured, I would be provided feedback with ample time. Five emails and three phone calls over another week and then, two hours before class, I received an email reply with suggested changes.
The worst part is that there’s nothing to do about it. Not a thing. I’m carrying quite the GPA and am paranoid of doing anything to endanger it. So I grit my teeth, a big pushover, awaiting graduation. With three classes left after this semester the finish line is too close.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Keep it Going!
Earlier today on an email front page containing news there was a top story claiming that Mitt Romney was limping towards the Republican presidential nomination. Purportedly this headline was all about how the once and current front-runner isn’t doing as well as a prohibitive favorite should at this point. Certainly there’s some consternation from those who, you know, actually care about who will be the Republican nominee this fall over the length of the process but it’s not really credible in an opinion piece thinly disguised as news from a supposedly straight news wire service. It seems, at least on matters of most importance this year, that there is not much difference between these candidate’s stances. There is much to be said for a long process that continually tests and improves the eventual nominee, not to mention that many states have yet to vote and their citizens deserve a chance to contribute. If, in the general election, the worst that can be said is that the Republican candidate couldn’t win the primary right away, because everything else that could have been said already was, that’s a good thing. And, a compliment to GOP voters, as it proves that they make careful considerations when selecting a Presidential candidate. The worry-warts in the party will worry, and if not over this then something else, like Maine. At least they have concern for something they care about. Beware the advice of those who wish to see us lose.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Beware of Leftists Claiming Right
In somewhat expectable but still humorous fashion, some supporters of President Obama’s policies have begun the tactic of attempting to convince the skeptical that the President is actually center-right, whatever that is. This tactic can be recognized first by an attempt to claim that the President’s political critics are off-base painting certain policies and speeches as in line with Republican priorities such as his recent speech touting a lowering of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%. Second, they’ll mention that because of all these conservative tendencies, the President has alienated liberals and that no one has ever really tried true progressive/liberal reform that would be certain to work. As an example they’ll likely claim that the President is actually a tax cutter.
There are no convincing purveyors of this nonsense otherwise. One could ask about the President’s statements on taxes, real-actual tax increases in Obamacare, attempts to increase taxes in the past and submitted budgets containing tax increases, none of these count because Obamacare isn’t in effect yet and the President hasn’t signed a budget because the Senate hasn’t passed one. One could question the validity of tax credits and reductions in the payroll tax, which ostensively fund Social Security, as actual tax cuts and be ignored. One could then remind their tormentor that the President’s speech on lowering corporate tax rates doesn’t exist in any legislative form, and be ignored further.
Relatively, the Republican Presidential candidates have been lobbing rhetorical softballs at the President on his policies. Some seem convinced that he’s just in over his head, trying not to offend voters who consider tone an electoral consideration. This President is a politician of the left and has pushed liberal/progressive policies and advocated for much more his entire political career. Annoyed utopians expecting what can only be delivered from government action by way of magic wand and fans of the administration wanting to confuse may have convinced themselves that this President is something other than he is, even somewhat right-ish in office. Fortunately, this President is who he is, his record speaks volumes and most voters aren’t as dumb as liberals would like to think they are.
There are no convincing purveyors of this nonsense otherwise. One could ask about the President’s statements on taxes, real-actual tax increases in Obamacare, attempts to increase taxes in the past and submitted budgets containing tax increases, none of these count because Obamacare isn’t in effect yet and the President hasn’t signed a budget because the Senate hasn’t passed one. One could question the validity of tax credits and reductions in the payroll tax, which ostensively fund Social Security, as actual tax cuts and be ignored. One could then remind their tormentor that the President’s speech on lowering corporate tax rates doesn’t exist in any legislative form, and be ignored further.
Relatively, the Republican Presidential candidates have been lobbing rhetorical softballs at the President on his policies. Some seem convinced that he’s just in over his head, trying not to offend voters who consider tone an electoral consideration. This President is a politician of the left and has pushed liberal/progressive policies and advocated for much more his entire political career. Annoyed utopians expecting what can only be delivered from government action by way of magic wand and fans of the administration wanting to confuse may have convinced themselves that this President is something other than he is, even somewhat right-ish in office. Fortunately, this President is who he is, his record speaks volumes and most voters aren’t as dumb as liberals would like to think they are.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Alternate 'Free' Access
Imagine you are a person full of idealistic civic virtue who happens to be a vegan, one who honestly believes that eating meat is not just bad but morally wrong. One day you join an organization made up of similarly thinking vegans. Eventually your life becomes more and more involved with this organization to the point that you become employed through one of their subsidiaries. As part of that employment you enroll in a food co-op system in which your employer, along with many others of similar disposition, create a system aimed to share the costs of and increase access to delicious vegan food. This arrangement is great and works for those involved. One day the government decides that food sharing agreements amongst citizens must include access to meat and that vegan organizations must provide it for free. This new edict not only raises the costs of your food sharing agreement but also limits the selection of vegan food in order to pay for this ‘free’ meat. You don’t eat meat, so from your standpoint you only see increased costs for less food. Some of your co-workers who were not part of the stricter organization ate meat before the edict and it was readily available outside of the vegan food co-op. Your vegan organization’s leadership is distraught because they are morally opposed to meat consumption but now their subsidiary is, by coercion of law, forced into it. How would this scenario be reported within the context of today’s political sensibilities? Would the vegan organization and its supporters be slandered as wanting to ban meat eating? What justification would be given for forcing vegans to pay for the meat of others? What if the government presented a ‘compromise’ where instead of forcing vegan organizations to provide food co-op plans including meat they required the co-op’s food providers to include it to vegans for ‘free’? How would that be received? Perhaps figurative vegans should consider it.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Journal Assumes Current Holder’s Ownership of Elected Legislation Position
In the city of Albuquerque, the city council is made up of citizen legislators duly elected by their peers for part time fixed terms. Those glancing today’s Albuquerque Journal may find themselves misinformed if they did not already understand this fact. The top of the fold headline in this morning’s Journal reads:
“Council OKs Map, Cutting Benton’s Seat”What an atrocious wording. As the population density of Albuquerque has shifted towards the west side of the city it became necessary for the city council to consider re-districting without increasing the number of councilors. The council seat appropriated to the west side under the most current redistricting plan is not the property of Mr. Benson; it is an elected position of limited governance granted by the citizens of our city. Mr. Benson may move to the area of the city where the council seat he currently holds has been moved and run for that seat. He may run for the seat now representing his current home. Difficult decisions based on population density had to be considered in order to complete redistricting; it was not done by coin flip. It is sheer ignorance for the Journal to imply ownership of a city council position by a so-called elected citizen legislator.
Sunday, February 05, 2012
Super Bowl Randomness
In honor of what is unfortunately the last football game for what will seem like forever, but good because that forever allows Tim Tebow to get better (and he will), some random stories from this morning.
Yesterday, the Patriots cut one of their wide receivers. The player took it well and since he played less than Chad Ochocinco, this probably wasn’t that surprising, other than it coming on the eve of the Super Bowl. The posting anticipated the thoughts of many who clicked through informing them that if the Patriots win today, the player will likely receive a ring.
On CBSSports.com, Gregg Doyel asks “It's the Super Bowl -- so why are we talking about Irsay and Peyton?” The column is critical of what the author describes as the owner and current, but maybe soon to be ex, quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts sucking coverage from the vacuum of Super Bowl week. What isn’t clear is if the Colts story bothers Doyel so much, why is he writing about other’s writing about it and not writing about the only story that really matters according to him? Columns about over coverage of one topic lamenting typeface wasted on supposedly irrelevant topics are double irrelevant. There is no lack of room for every silly story out there any time and it’s not certain that the actual teams playing the game actually mind, irrelevant coverage, not about them, allows them to concentrate. How about Peyton Manning owning the conversation on his recovery, forcing Colts owner Irsay into reactionary mode? That dude knows PR and whatnot.
Deadspin, the sports gossip website, re-printed Drew Magary’s Super Bowl chili recipe. There was a Facebook post the other day from someone looking for a chili recipe, there seems to be several ingredients core to a chili recipe with the rest comprised of whatever kitchen scraps happen to be available. Drew is a fantastic writer and the only one worth reading at Deadspin.
Joe Posnaski at Sports Illustrated writes that this year’s Super Bowl is unusual, unlike any other. Greg Garber at ESPN writes that there’s an undercurrent of revenge from the game four years ago when these same teams last met in the Super Bowl. Who knows? We’ll all know in about eleven hours.
Yesterday, the Patriots cut one of their wide receivers. The player took it well and since he played less than Chad Ochocinco, this probably wasn’t that surprising, other than it coming on the eve of the Super Bowl. The posting anticipated the thoughts of many who clicked through informing them that if the Patriots win today, the player will likely receive a ring.
On CBSSports.com, Gregg Doyel asks “It's the Super Bowl -- so why are we talking about Irsay and Peyton?” The column is critical of what the author describes as the owner and current, but maybe soon to be ex, quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts sucking coverage from the vacuum of Super Bowl week. What isn’t clear is if the Colts story bothers Doyel so much, why is he writing about other’s writing about it and not writing about the only story that really matters according to him? Columns about over coverage of one topic lamenting typeface wasted on supposedly irrelevant topics are double irrelevant. There is no lack of room for every silly story out there any time and it’s not certain that the actual teams playing the game actually mind, irrelevant coverage, not about them, allows them to concentrate. How about Peyton Manning owning the conversation on his recovery, forcing Colts owner Irsay into reactionary mode? That dude knows PR and whatnot.
Deadspin, the sports gossip website, re-printed Drew Magary’s Super Bowl chili recipe. There was a Facebook post the other day from someone looking for a chili recipe, there seems to be several ingredients core to a chili recipe with the rest comprised of whatever kitchen scraps happen to be available. Drew is a fantastic writer and the only one worth reading at Deadspin.
Joe Posnaski at Sports Illustrated writes that this year’s Super Bowl is unusual, unlike any other. Greg Garber at ESPN writes that there’s an undercurrent of revenge from the game four years ago when these same teams last met in the Super Bowl. Who knows? We’ll all know in about eleven hours.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
President Mortgage Counselor
I wasn’t yet thirty years old when I bought my house, entering into a loan that would more than double my age if by some miracle of not wanting to ever move I were to pay it off. The paperwork required to apply for and then close on the loan was voluminous. It’s wasn’t easy and although the title company representative wanted to go home for the day and encouraged me to skip it, I read the entirety of the documentation. What do I want, a cookie? Of course not, I did what I was supposed to. Indubitably there was a lot of paperwork; it was for a contract with a shelf life of thirty years, 38.46% of the average life expectancy in this country. The most difficult part was the number of pages and the redundancy. There was a lot of legalese but even though I am not a lawyer, there was enough material there to make sense to a layman.
Today, for the umpteenth time during his term, the President offered up a personal story because, apparently, he can personally relate to anything that ever happens to anyone and is an expert on how everyone should do everything. The subject du jour was the difficulty of mortgage contracts and the introduction of a new boondoggle, the so-called “Homeowners Bill of Rights”. At one point during this introduhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifction:
“The president recalled his and First Lady Michelle Obama's experience buying their first home together - a process he described, humorously, as so complicated that the two of them would end up looking through the forms and asking "what does this phrase mean?" … "And that's, you know, for two trained lawyers," he laughed.”
So funny. As if the only reason there are foreclosures is because mortgage forms are too difficult and not at all to do with some people buying things that they can’t afford. As if the President and First Lady were mortgage lawyers in their previous careers. I don’t recall reading that in their qualifications. There are so many legal subjects and there aren’t any lawyers that specialize in everything. Because the profession relies on reading comprehension and because there is sooooooo much law, thanks to politicians simpatico with the President, it’s impossible for a lawyer to understand every subject. But, the thing is, it’s not that hard. There’s just a lot of reading in the mortgage process. Blaming the process is lazy and protects the irresponsible who didn’t even bother to read and comprehend it before signing.
2012 being an election year, the purported “Homeowners Bill of Rights” is nothing but a redistribution scheme vote buying device under the ruse of “caring”. Contract law is complicated and the reason why mortgage contracts are so long is because of that complexity, because of the law, of which the President happens to be in charge of the Executive Branch of. And introducing feel-good legislation that will only end up costing homeowners who pay their bills because they bought something they can afford because they won’t be eligible for the program. Yes there are unfortunate circumstances and exceptions but those cases make up a negligible percentage of who will take advantage of their neighbors by this program. You’re welcome. Of course, the President will take credit, and it will only cost more billions this country doesn’t have. Whatever, as long as he retains power for another four years.
Today, for the umpteenth time during his term, the President offered up a personal story because, apparently, he can personally relate to anything that ever happens to anyone and is an expert on how everyone should do everything. The subject du jour was the difficulty of mortgage contracts and the introduction of a new boondoggle, the so-called “Homeowners Bill of Rights”. At one point during this introduhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifction:
“The president recalled his and First Lady Michelle Obama's experience buying their first home together - a process he described, humorously, as so complicated that the two of them would end up looking through the forms and asking "what does this phrase mean?" … "And that's, you know, for two trained lawyers," he laughed.”
So funny. As if the only reason there are foreclosures is because mortgage forms are too difficult and not at all to do with some people buying things that they can’t afford. As if the President and First Lady were mortgage lawyers in their previous careers. I don’t recall reading that in their qualifications. There are so many legal subjects and there aren’t any lawyers that specialize in everything. Because the profession relies on reading comprehension and because there is sooooooo much law, thanks to politicians simpatico with the President, it’s impossible for a lawyer to understand every subject. But, the thing is, it’s not that hard. There’s just a lot of reading in the mortgage process. Blaming the process is lazy and protects the irresponsible who didn’t even bother to read and comprehend it before signing.
2012 being an election year, the purported “Homeowners Bill of Rights” is nothing but a redistribution scheme vote buying device under the ruse of “caring”. Contract law is complicated and the reason why mortgage contracts are so long is because of that complexity, because of the law, of which the President happens to be in charge of the Executive Branch of. And introducing feel-good legislation that will only end up costing homeowners who pay their bills because they bought something they can afford because they won’t be eligible for the program. Yes there are unfortunate circumstances and exceptions but those cases make up a negligible percentage of who will take advantage of their neighbors by this program. You’re welcome. Of course, the President will take credit, and it will only cost more billions this country doesn’t have. Whatever, as long as he retains power for another four years.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
President Jobs Counselor
At an online forum hosted by Google this week (no, I will not type Google/YouTube. They are the same company. I would not write hosted by Chevrolet/Buick either. They are GM) the President was questioned by a woman who wondered why the country was issuing work visas for highly skilled foreigners while her husband, an engineer with a decade of experience, has been out of work for three years. The President, as he is wont to do, hemmed and hawed and eventually spurted out the following:
"If you send me your husband's resume, I'd be interested in finding out exactly what's happening right there, because the word we're getting is, is that somebody in that kind of high-tech field, that kind of engineer, should be able to find something right away."
This brand of gibberish feeds the oversimplified notion that some oppose the President’s policies and actions because it’s assumed that they think that he’s overwhelmed. The President has done this before, allowing a sympathetic audience member to hijack an appearance in order to vent on and demand an explanation for their personal misfortunes, and then he asks for that person’s contact information so he could look into it. There are more than 300 million people in this country and it’s folly to presume and egocentric for the President to believe that he can solve the problems of those 300 million people one by one.
While the stories the President hears may be sympathetic it’s not fair to focus resources on those who force themselves into the spotlight. We just don’t know the whole story of this unemployed engineer. What was he working on when he was laid off? Was it one of those laid off in lieu of firing things? Has he been on any interviews over the past three years? Is he willing to try other things? Has he tried other things? And, in what world is the President qualified to examine and assess the resume of an engineer? Perhaps to some the President looks good by feigning concern but it just seems preposterous on face and welcomes one to ask the President if he’s comfortable representing the competing interests of a country as populous as ours or if he thinks that he can be a micro-managing President to one person at a time, this week the jobs counselor for an engineer in Texas?
"If you send me your husband's resume, I'd be interested in finding out exactly what's happening right there, because the word we're getting is, is that somebody in that kind of high-tech field, that kind of engineer, should be able to find something right away."
This brand of gibberish feeds the oversimplified notion that some oppose the President’s policies and actions because it’s assumed that they think that he’s overwhelmed. The President has done this before, allowing a sympathetic audience member to hijack an appearance in order to vent on and demand an explanation for their personal misfortunes, and then he asks for that person’s contact information so he could look into it. There are more than 300 million people in this country and it’s folly to presume and egocentric for the President to believe that he can solve the problems of those 300 million people one by one.
While the stories the President hears may be sympathetic it’s not fair to focus resources on those who force themselves into the spotlight. We just don’t know the whole story of this unemployed engineer. What was he working on when he was laid off? Was it one of those laid off in lieu of firing things? Has he been on any interviews over the past three years? Is he willing to try other things? Has he tried other things? And, in what world is the President qualified to examine and assess the resume of an engineer? Perhaps to some the President looks good by feigning concern but it just seems preposterous on face and welcomes one to ask the President if he’s comfortable representing the competing interests of a country as populous as ours or if he thinks that he can be a micro-managing President to one person at a time, this week the jobs counselor for an engineer in Texas?
The Class Participation Trap
Class participation is quite the double edged sword. It’s annoying to be clichéd about it, but the truth fits it sometimes. Participating in a class is an excellent method to exhibit knowledge to the professor and discuss concepts with a class in order to better form understanding. It is also a way for grandstanding overbearing know-it-alls to filibuster and move the discussion to irrelevant tangents ensuring that class becomes tedious and off-point. It really requires a strong and organized professor to keep a course on track and if not, at least there’s the internet as a distraction. It gets worse if the professor has trouble avoiding tangents themselves. And double worse if they can’t even keep the material straight. A key phrase that is telling with regard to the direction the day will take is when a professor is discussing something and then casually states that they have no personal experience in the subject. The best will stick to the printed material closely to get through it. The others will muddle and veer towards more familiar territory attempting to make connections that don’t exist. That’s when it’s time to nap.
Contraceptive Costs for All! Use by Some!
There has been much warranted discussion this week with regard to the federal Department of Health and Human Services rejecting employer conscious related requests not to provide contraception, abortifacients and sterilization coverage “free” within insurance offerings. Literal churches are exempt but religious affiliated institutions including hospitals, universities and agencies are not and have one year to comply. HHS’s decision is abhorrent but predictable because those who made the decision don’t understand or respect the objections and appreciate that allowing exceptions can lead to a collapse of the system that they impose in that it relies on many not using the stated benefits, while having access to them, in order to cover the costs for those who do.
And those costs are what make this dictatorial edict even more erroneous. Cloaked under the presumptively incontrovertible auspices of ‘women’s health’ it dictates that erstwhile private, employer provided health insurance in the United States of America must offer contraception, abortifacients and sterilization coverage “free” of charge and with no increase in premium. However, no matter the power of the federal government’s figurative magic wand, tangible goods are not “free”, and their costs will simply be shifted to others by virtue of lessened coverage. Those with less politically favorable conditions will be forced to pay more for their own health needs in order to pay for what the government decides should be “free”. And those who have entirely valid objections to that coverage will be coerced, by the power of the federal government, into violating their convictions in order to advance the ruse of “free” benefits to favored political constituencies.
And those costs are what make this dictatorial edict even more erroneous. Cloaked under the presumptively incontrovertible auspices of ‘women’s health’ it dictates that erstwhile private, employer provided health insurance in the United States of America must offer contraception, abortifacients and sterilization coverage “free” of charge and with no increase in premium. However, no matter the power of the federal government’s figurative magic wand, tangible goods are not “free”, and their costs will simply be shifted to others by virtue of lessened coverage. Those with less politically favorable conditions will be forced to pay more for their own health needs in order to pay for what the government decides should be “free”. And those who have entirely valid objections to that coverage will be coerced, by the power of the federal government, into violating their convictions in order to advance the ruse of “free” benefits to favored political constituencies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)