Admission of Guilt

For decades, the premier colleges throughout America have maintained strict admission policies. Referencing their legal right to allow or deny any student from their academic superiority, many colleges have relied heavily on the "Legacy" policy for their candidate selection. This policy was used in attempts to prevent African Americans, and other minorities, from integrating onto their campuses, though eventually their hands were forced by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Though legacy admissions have been on the decline over the past decade, they still account for over half of the admissions in "Ivy League" universities.

On the other hand, we have community colleges, such as HACC, which provides an educational opportunity for anyone willing, and able, to pay the admission fee. These establishments allow for higher education opportunities to young single mothers, established career professionals, and recent legal immigrants. Whether you're a 73 year old grandmother or an eighteen year old recent high school graduate without a direction in life; one may find the opportunity to advance their education through community colleges.

I don't see these bastions of education as having any negative effect; this is to say that people do not try to create one.

One may hint that the open admission policy is set in place by overzealous capitalists whose eyes are trained on a student's pockets and not their mind.

There is some truth in this theory. A college is a business that provides a service. All businesses are in the business of making money. Therefore, a college is in the business of making money, while providing the student a service. The service comes in the form of credits, degrees, and transcripts. One may choose to continue their education at a university, which they will be able to utilizing the service of a college transcript. As absurd as this may sound to some people, much like purchasing those $100 designer jeans or sneakers, you're paying for the Harrisburg Area Community College label. HACC has gone to great lengths to provide a collaboration with universities, such as Penn State, to guarantee transfer of all credits, thus saving the student money that would have to be spent at a university. Thanks to this, attending a community college will ultimately save money that would have been spent on the first two years of a university.

Another reason one may protest against the open admission policy is the argument that these colleges prey on students that, as the counselors would agree, will not be able to meet the academic criteria to pass. This person may argue that "college isn't for everyone".

To this I bring up a story from my time in high school. I chose the "Business" curriculum, where many others chose the "College Prep" curriculum. In this curriculum I learned accounting, typing, proper filing, how to write a proper business letter and resume, and was Microsoft Office certified. Meanwhile, the College Prep students learned calculus, chemistry, and biology. At the end of all of my course descriptions in the course handbook it stated "This class is not intended for the college bound student." My own school's course manual said that I was unable to go to college because I was taking classes that prepared me for working in business.

After graduation, I joined the Marine Corps and ended up teaching my class how to use Power Point. I left the Marine Corps and decided to go to college. I'm not the smartest person, and I would say that I'm an "average" student. I study the night before the exam, and write my papers the day they're due. I put the 'pro' in procrastination. I would argue that when I first started, a counselor would say that I was wasting my time as well.

Until college admission deans have a precognitive ability to foresee whether or not a student has the potential to get their degree or not, it is not up to them, it is up to the student.

College is a learning experience, whether you graduate or not. What many fail to acknowledge is the hidden curriculum found at a community college.

Because of my experiences in college over the past two years, I've learned to be more tolerant toward people and their opinions. I've learned that it's perfectly acceptable to "agree to disagree", and that that separation is what makes everyone unique. Arguably, I've found out more about myself within the past two years than I had within the twenty-four that preceded them.

I didn't take "Tolerance 201" or "Finding Yourself 102", I just attended class. This all began with one open admissions policy at Northampton Community College in Tannersville, Pennsyltucky.

The Present Dent

President Obama sparked severe criticism when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He joined the ranks with the likes of Woodrow Wilson, Frank Kellogg, Mother Teresa, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, George Marshall, and Yasser Arafat.

Many, including President Obama himself, claim that he did not deserve the award. According to Nobelprize.org, President Obama received the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

I believe that these negative sentiments come from his lack of time in office, along with his (as the press calls it) "rock star appeal". Compare this to Martti Ahtisaarifor, the 2008 Nobel winner and arguably a person that no one in the class has ever heard of, for "his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts".

Three decades!! President Obama won the award when he was 48 years old. He was a teenager when Martti began resolving international conflicts!

I believe that Martti Ahtisaarifor is what the world has come to accept as a Nobel Peace Prize winner, or the likes of Jody Williams and the ICBL (International Campaign to Ban Landmines) for going out and clearing anti-personnel landmines from old battlefields. These people have taken action, set precedents, and made a difference.

Has President Obama really made a difference? Has he made a significant impact on this world?

Recently President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has signed a treaty to disarm a third of the U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons. Many claim this to be an Obama victory, suggesting that President Obama was the creator of this treaty.

However, many Americans are very forgetful. It was actually former President Ronald Reagan who originally proposed the treaty to, then, Union of Soviet Socialist Republic President Mikhail Gorbachev.

True, Obama did get a signature, and in standard form Fox overreacted and cried anti-Christ, while every other US news media praised him for curing the blind and walking on water.

But just as Reagan "broke the wall", Obama's been riding many lesser known coattails of his predecessor. Over a year later and he's still following the Bush administration's timeline for Iraq and Afghanistan, yet those were his major selling points while on the "Bob the Builder" campaign trail. DID HE STEAL IT, YES HE DID!!

Just my suggestion; we should concentrate on world peace.

Where's my damned prize money?

Slippery Slope Fallacies run rampant in the streets

If you give a mouse a cookie, he will ask for a glass of milk....

If "people spores" implant themselves into my furniture, I will stop smoking this crazy shit....

If a burglar breaks into my house, I will shoot him with the 12 gauge behind the door....

If a baby breaks into my house, I will love it until my dying breath....

G.I. Jane

Many times throughout my military career have I been asked about my feelings about females in combat.

Historically, females have been limited to rear echelon jobs within the military. These jobs began with administrative clerical work during the second world war and have progressed to jobs such as mechanics, motor transport, and pilots. However, such progressive steps have not provided the allowance of females into what are designated "combat roles" or Victor Units (units designated for combat).

Some contradictions do occur with modern combat and the conceptualization of "combat roles". These contradictions come in the form of the label of "combat roles". With the advancement of technology, the M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank, with its impressive jet turbine engine, only gets eleven miles to the gallon. This means that supply vehicles must be close behind the "tip of the spear" to allow for continuous operations.

During the Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Iraqi Faydeen would allow 1st Marine Division's tanks to pass through their location to attack the less armored supply convoys. Because of these tactics, the Iraqi Faydeen were able to capture an Army soldier by the name of Jessica Lynch.

This is where the contradiction begins. In modern combat, there is no such thing as a "front line". There is no "we're over here" or "they're over there". The front line is the front gate out of the base.

The media proclaimed Lynch as being a hero. Stories were made about how she expelled all rounds in defense of her fellow soldiers and their convoy.

Her rifle was found caked with sand and reported to have a full magazine inserted.

Was this fatal shortfall due to her being a female?

No. My argument is that it is due to her being a soldier.

The Army, for decades, in their attempt to allow for more applicable soldiers, have substantially lowered their standards. The goal, for lowering these standards, was to allow for females to fill more roles, as well as to allow for those who were not as physically, or mentally, inclined to meet the previous standards to have the opportunity to join.

While lowering their standards, the Army has simultaneously increased their operation tempo and requirements for their soldiers.

Within the Army, soldiers are taught how to do their job specialization, in many instances in lieu of weapons training and maintenance.

Because of these shortcomings, the Army has recently started a new initiative towards becoming more "Expeditionary".

Many will argue, "How hard is it to pull a trigger?" in regards to allowing females to enter into the combat MOSs (Military Occupational Specialty, codes used by the military to designate seperate jobs within each branch).

It takes, roughly, five pounds worth of pull pressure to fire a trigger. However, it takes strong legs, unwaivering willpower, and an infinite supply of heart to carry a 140 lbs pack over 20 miles, set up a rally point, assault a target with pinpoint accuracy, then exfiltrate.

It takes that same formula to run into oncoming gunfire and grab a fallen friend, with gear weighing roughly 210 lbs, and drag them out of the line of fire.

Am I saying that a woman does not possess these qualities? Absolutely not. I've had the pleasure to meet a few female Marines who can lift, out run, and out shoot most Marines. It's quite a humbling experience to see a near perfect rifle qualification. Even more impressive to see one armed pull-ups from the same female Marine.

This female, however, is not the standard, and furthermore, the Marine Corps was not above lowering its standards to allow for the retention of females.

In summation: when the military lowers its standards, but raises expectations, we're setting ourselves up for military failures.

If a female can do all that I am required to do, then I feel confident in going to combat with her. Unfortunately, insurgents don't have female tees. They don't care whether or not you were able to hold yourself above the bar, but your fellow Marines care whether or not you can pull their asses out of the shit.

My stances on the logistics are the same as with the concept of homosexuals in the military. Something that is unavoidable, but adaptable.

Not every female is cut out for the job.

But for the very few that are, I say, "if you can live up to the standard that I'm held to, if you can shoot and hold your own in a firefight, then you're more than welcome in my fighting hole."

Only YOU can prevent sober driving!!

According to statistics (http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html) in 2006, 2007, and 2008, only 37% of fatal accidents were caused by people under the influence of alcohol. In 26 years, this number has fallen to almost half of the fatal accidents reported a year.

My argument is this; if 37% of driving fatalities are from intoxicated drivers, then this means that 63% of them are caused by sober drivers. Due to these statistics, I propose DASD, Drivers Against Sober Drivers. If 63% of driving fatalities are caused by sober drivers, who is at fault? We can no longer blame alcohol.

What's also interesting about the statistics is that, besides 1988, the number of driving fatalities has remained fairly constant. Yet the number of alcohol-related fatalities has halved.

I think that we need to start insisting that more people drive while intoxicated to prevent the loss of lives that we see out on our roadways.

If we don't institute new laws against sober driving, then statistically speaking, we will continue to see the rise of sober-driving related fatalities.

How do we stop the menace of sober drivers? Do we set up sober checkpoints to ensure that people aren't sober while driving? Should we post police at the exits of AA meetings?

Maybe it falls on the individual? When was the last time you took a friend's keys because they were too sober to drive?

How about just enforcing stronger driving tests?

Maybe that's the key?

It may be a bit "out of the box", but what would happen if we ensured that these 17, 18, and 20 year old kids actually knew how to drive instead of them peeling out in the parking lot of our own campus?

When was the last time you, as an individual, saw a kid flying through the parking lot and didn't say anything to them? Who's responsibility is it?

It's our community; it's our college; it's OUR responsibility to stop these reckless individuals from speeding in our parking lot, or not stopping at the stop signs.

It's either that, or we start punishing all sober drivers for the ignorant behavior of those too irresponsible to understand and appreciate this privilege.

Because that's what it is, a privilege, not a right, to allow these young, barely, adults to operate a motor vehicle.

Disclaimer: I had a great argument prepared, one that would shock quite a bit of people and get people yelling at me. Which, for the sake of this blog, is really what I'm going for. I was really inspired by "Thank You for Smoking", as in that if you can argue a point for something so seemingly absurd, such as smoking cigarettes in the context of the movie especially, then you have certainly reached a level of influence and linguistic skill.

With that in mind, let me also say that before anyone reads what I'm about to write, I lost a very close and beloved friend of mine due to his poor decision to drink and drive. Furthermore, I found out about his death while I was in Iraq. My commander had to take me off of patrols and I was forced to see the chaplain for about two weeks. So please understand that I have nothing but sympathy for those lost due to drinking and driving.

But I still love technology, not as much as you, you see...

Technology is bad.

By technology, of course, I'm referring to the advancement of mankind by the use of tools. The wheel, fire, the club; all technology that should have been avoided.

It's because of these technological advancements that led mankind to eventually create more destructive weapons such as napalm, agent orange, and VX (if you don't know what VX is, take 7 min 16 seconds of your day to watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkbBnvz0rw0 ).

Because of the technological advancements of fire, the wheel, and the club, the human race has mercilessly slaughtered hundreds of innocent species into extinction, as well as destroyed over three quarters of the world's rain forest, which the Earth depends on for the sustenance of life.

What's even more horrendous is the thought that some people may disagree with my statements.

History has shown that it has been mankind that has caused the most destruction on this Earth. Whether it's oil spills, nuclear meltdowns, or simple pollution, these technological disasters could not have occurred had it not been for the invention of fire, the wheel, and the club.

Therefore, those who oppose my view point are those who support the desecration of the planet that they live on. These people would be the ones who support the destruction of the rain forest, the killing of endangered species, and the napalm attacks on innocent children.

Is this the technology that you love? Think about this picture the next time you text or forward a St Patrick's Day message. The technology that allows you to do so, is also the same that caused these images.

Valen*bleh*tine's Day

So, let's pretend that we don't live in a greed driven society that has brought about some of the worst sides of mankind this world has seen. Let us pretend, for a moment, that people aren't killed on a daily basis in car accidents because they're obsessed with being first to their freeway exit. Let us pretend, also, that we actually care about those unfortunate beings living on the streets, rather than figuring out a multitude of ways to ignore them when they ask for some assistance.

So now we're pretending that these atrocious behaviors of mankind don't exist, are you still following along?

Now, let us celebrate a holiday celebrating a Catholic Saint who was, reportedly, the epitome of compassion and caring. We take his name, drop the "Saint" and market chocolates, roses, and all sorts of overly priced shimmering rocks that aren't worth one thousand times their weight in gold.

Have you ever given serious thought as to why we have holidays in this country? We have a Veteran's day, but the only people who celebrate it are veterans, or people who are emotionally close to veterans and know how important that day is to us. We have a president's day... to remember our... presidents? Meanwhile, the media slanders and mocks the one that's currently in office (technically, it'd be libel, not slander, as it's through a medium of the media, but for argument's sake, I figured more people would understand the term "slander" than "libel").

We celebrate Easter, which is, supposedly, to commemorate the day that the Christian's token celebrity, Jesus Christ, rose from the dead after being crucified. But we have chocolate bunnies and painted eggs?

We don't have off for Ramadan or Hanukkah. No one can honestly tell you what Kwanza is unless they’ve had to tell someone what it was before.
We have Columbus day. Which is awesome. I bet the Caribbean natives love that holiday.
I can’t imagine what this country would do if a fully practicing Shiite would take to the streets for Ashura on the tenth day of Muharram (some Sunnis also participate in Ashura, but the holiday tends to be primarily Shi’a).


Why do we need a “special” day to tell someone how we feel about them through gifts? Is that how monetaricentric (yes, I think I made that word up, but it works here) our society has become, that we’re expected to buy gifts for someone else to show how much we care about them?
Since when has money equaled caring?
Should not every opportunity throughout the entirety of a day be taken to show one’s love and affection? Why must that cost money?

For five years I bought into this monetary conception of “love”. At the end of the five years, all I was left with was a bill, and without a significant other. So the amount of money spent on someone has zero affect on whether or not love is present.

With the current model, greed is the center of a common relationship.


I want LOVE to be the center of my relationship.

Question is: what’s in the center of your relationship this Valentine’s Day?