http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/personhood-amendments-would-ban-nearly-all-abortions.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=PO-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-PPA-102611-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click
So Mississippi...you know- the state with the worst education in the country, lots of poor people and overall not a great place to live (Sorry, but look at the data- it's not very kind). They decided that trying to outlaw abortion was just not enough. So what do they decide to do? Let's pass a constitutional amendment that makes a fertilized egg a human being. Damn. They are not messing around.
So what does that even mean? Well, no abortions...duh. Rape and incest? Nope- absolutely no abortions. Abortion to save the mother's life? Not gonna happen. No "morning after" pills either, you heathens (though they only prevent fertilization from happening...so once it's fertilized they do nothing. But apparently facts don't matter). In vitro fertilization? Kind of gray area.
Pull quote- "Personhood is bigger than just shutting down abortion clinics; it's an opportunity for people to say that we're made in the image of God." You didn't misread that. Separation of church and state anyone?
It's no secret how pro choice I am. Do I like abortion? No, but honestly, who does? Nobody, that's who. I know it's asking a lot, but I just like having control over my body and be able to make choices about it.
It's also interesting to hear about Conservative pro life groups that want nothing to do with this campaign, because of the possible repercussions. Because if this passes, there will be a legal battle and it will be declared unconstitutional- and some pro life groups are afraid higher courts may make a judgment that hurts their movement more so. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say with 100% certainty that this will be declared unconstitutional; but I'm also not an idiot, so I can say it's pretty damn probable.
I could go on and on...but I'll just end with this- is Mississippi prepared to deal with higher birth rates if this passes? Because if there are no abortions, there will obviously be more babies. That means there's also going to be a higher instance of women having children they can't take of. There's a good chance they will go on Public Assistance. And then be told over and over by the government, the media and many others that she's a lazy, awful human being because she's leeching off the government. If you don't want women having children they can't afford/take care of- then give them options. You know, like fund Planned Parenthood so women can get easier access to contraception and not get pregnant. You can't have it both ways- sorry Mississippi. Go ahead and throw a tantrum. Not like it will make a difference. You're already considered one of, if not the, worst states to live in. Yet, you've somehow found a way to sink to a new low.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Gender Equality- Norway
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/world/europe/in-norway-gender-equality-does-not-extend-to-the-bedroom.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=world&gwh=F6B8775CEF79CEE11952080D078B8654
I'll admit I was surprised by this article. Maybe I was under the veil of how great Scandinavian countries seem to be at everything. I guess the grass isn't always greener...
I don't know a lot about the law (except how to break it), but doesn't it seem kind of jarring that a country like Norwary- where we applaud them for their liberal views on healthcare, maternity/paternity leave, education- and yet husbands who rape their wives are often acquitted?
I'll admit I was surprised by this article. Maybe I was under the veil of how great Scandinavian countries seem to be at everything. I guess the grass isn't always greener...
I don't know a lot about the law (except how to break it), but doesn't it seem kind of jarring that a country like Norwary- where we applaud them for their liberal views on healthcare, maternity/paternity leave, education- and yet husbands who rape their wives are often acquitted?
Friday, October 21, 2011
Student Debt
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/21/141564239/school-debt-a-long-term-burden-for-many-graduates?sc=fb&cc=fp
As I'll be graduating with my Master's this summer, it's a no brainer that I have student loan debt. I know how much I'll have too- even in undergrad I was always aware of what I was borrowing. I know that's not so for everyone...but it's hard for me to have sympathy for them. I guess what makes me scratch my head is that- why are we only blaming the loan companies? They are not saints by any means, I know- but why aren't people more upset with the colleges/universities? They're the ones who have raised tuition every year by crazy numbers (and yes, I am aware that public universities sometimes don't have a choice when the state continues to cut their budgets) and expected students to take on the burden. And of course we have, because we need an education to get a job and be "functioning" members of society.
But it can't be so easy- we can't just forgive loans. And boy, do I wish it was that easy. Because there are a lot of people with great degrees who are out in the world who don't deserve the debt they have. We need to make a lot of changes- as a society, we need to stop thinking that every person has to go to college. It's not right for everyone. But to get society to stop thinking like this, we need to have more jobs available to folks that don't require a college degree.
We also need to put caps on tuition- when you look at the data, it is scary to look at how tuition rates have changed in even the last 20 years. We need to strengthen programs like AmeriCorps- I loved my experience of giving a year of service to make my country a little better (hmmm...kind of bragging, but you get my point).
Right now, you can only serve 2 terms of service in AmeriCorps and I believe the total amount of loan forgiveness you can get (for the 2 years of service) is a little under $10,000. It's hard to entice grads to AmeriCorps and national service when, after two years of living in destitution and on food stamps, the amount of loan money you get is not much of a dent. Let's forgive more loans- and let people serve more years (you can serve as many years as you want, but you can only get loan money for 2 years).
As far as what to do with changing colleges and loan companies- ideas? I feel like I'm hearing of trends at colleges of hiring more and more administrative jobs...is that necessary? Shouldn't we be focusing on quality profs and students getting a quality education for their $$? There are many schools that are doing just that- and I applaud them.
It's hard to be 18 and realize that within four years you need to declare a major, that will set you on a track that determines the rest of your life. So yes, you will have students who may not pick the most "practical" major- but should they be punished? I know post graduation I changed a lot and it took many years before I realized what I wanted to do. And it wasn't easy- when I was working in schools I knew that I wasn't happy in my job as a para- because I felt like there was so much I wanted to do to make the school better, but couldn't because of my position/status. So I knew that I needed to do something else. I thought about a teaching license- but the sinking ship of education just didn't seem like a good risk to take. So I decided on Library Science- my history and comm background compliments it well and it also incorporates my new found passions for education and information literacy. I would have never known all of that at 18,19 years old. I feel like college has gone away from a time of self discovery combined with education and worldliness into a "I need a degree, what major/path will bring in enough money?"
Makes me sad.
As I'll be graduating with my Master's this summer, it's a no brainer that I have student loan debt. I know how much I'll have too- even in undergrad I was always aware of what I was borrowing. I know that's not so for everyone...but it's hard for me to have sympathy for them. I guess what makes me scratch my head is that- why are we only blaming the loan companies? They are not saints by any means, I know- but why aren't people more upset with the colleges/universities? They're the ones who have raised tuition every year by crazy numbers (and yes, I am aware that public universities sometimes don't have a choice when the state continues to cut their budgets) and expected students to take on the burden. And of course we have, because we need an education to get a job and be "functioning" members of society.
But it can't be so easy- we can't just forgive loans. And boy, do I wish it was that easy. Because there are a lot of people with great degrees who are out in the world who don't deserve the debt they have. We need to make a lot of changes- as a society, we need to stop thinking that every person has to go to college. It's not right for everyone. But to get society to stop thinking like this, we need to have more jobs available to folks that don't require a college degree.
We also need to put caps on tuition- when you look at the data, it is scary to look at how tuition rates have changed in even the last 20 years. We need to strengthen programs like AmeriCorps- I loved my experience of giving a year of service to make my country a little better (hmmm...kind of bragging, but you get my point).
Right now, you can only serve 2 terms of service in AmeriCorps and I believe the total amount of loan forgiveness you can get (for the 2 years of service) is a little under $10,000. It's hard to entice grads to AmeriCorps and national service when, after two years of living in destitution and on food stamps, the amount of loan money you get is not much of a dent. Let's forgive more loans- and let people serve more years (you can serve as many years as you want, but you can only get loan money for 2 years).
As far as what to do with changing colleges and loan companies- ideas? I feel like I'm hearing of trends at colleges of hiring more and more administrative jobs...is that necessary? Shouldn't we be focusing on quality profs and students getting a quality education for their $$? There are many schools that are doing just that- and I applaud them.
It's hard to be 18 and realize that within four years you need to declare a major, that will set you on a track that determines the rest of your life. So yes, you will have students who may not pick the most "practical" major- but should they be punished? I know post graduation I changed a lot and it took many years before I realized what I wanted to do. And it wasn't easy- when I was working in schools I knew that I wasn't happy in my job as a para- because I felt like there was so much I wanted to do to make the school better, but couldn't because of my position/status. So I knew that I needed to do something else. I thought about a teaching license- but the sinking ship of education just didn't seem like a good risk to take. So I decided on Library Science- my history and comm background compliments it well and it also incorporates my new found passions for education and information literacy. I would have never known all of that at 18,19 years old. I feel like college has gone away from a time of self discovery combined with education and worldliness into a "I need a degree, what major/path will bring in enough money?"
Makes me sad.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Slideshow time!
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2011/10/18/science/20111018-pole-1.html?gwh=7B625BD68205EB50EA2105DD92ED2500
Great slideshow of recently discovered photos from a South Pole expedition from 1910-1913. I love me some old photos :)
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/no-place/?ref=world
From the Lens Blog of the NY Times: Fulbright Scholar spends about a year on a small South Pacific island that is slowly sinking and suffering obvious affects from global warming. Oh wait, but that global warming bunk isn't true, eh?
Great slideshow of recently discovered photos from a South Pole expedition from 1910-1913. I love me some old photos :)
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/no-place/?ref=world
From the Lens Blog of the NY Times: Fulbright Scholar spends about a year on a small South Pacific island that is slowly sinking and suffering obvious affects from global warming. Oh wait, but that global warming bunk isn't true, eh?
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
NPR Bias? Or is it all in our heads?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2011/10/17/141415623/on-murdoch-and-liberal-bias-at-npr?sc=fb&cc=fp
NPR- constantly bombasted for their "liberal bias". It's a fairly well know criticism now with Juan Williams and all that. But how much of it is trumped up? I don't know if I can say. But sometimes I feel like they get blasted for the smallest things. Should they be under a microscope, so to speak, since they get public funds? Probably, to some extent. But when is it too far? I really don't think they went overboard with their coverage of the hacking scandal this past summer- frankly, I got most of my news from the NY Times (surprised?) because they were breaking news faster than NPR. And it was facts, not opinion. People were hacked by employees of NewsCorp. It hasn't been proved yet how much Murdoch and his son knew. I personally think the son knew a lot more than he's letting on- and I think Murdoch knew as well. But those aren't facts, just my opinion.
I liked that this article broke down their stories that were ran compared to other news outlets- when you look at it that way, it doesn't seem any more than, say, The Wall Street Journal. So what's the good word? NPR bias? Let's hear it!
NPR- constantly bombasted for their "liberal bias". It's a fairly well know criticism now with Juan Williams and all that. But how much of it is trumped up? I don't know if I can say. But sometimes I feel like they get blasted for the smallest things. Should they be under a microscope, so to speak, since they get public funds? Probably, to some extent. But when is it too far? I really don't think they went overboard with their coverage of the hacking scandal this past summer- frankly, I got most of my news from the NY Times (surprised?) because they were breaking news faster than NPR. And it was facts, not opinion. People were hacked by employees of NewsCorp. It hasn't been proved yet how much Murdoch and his son knew. I personally think the son knew a lot more than he's letting on- and I think Murdoch knew as well. But those aren't facts, just my opinion.
I liked that this article broke down their stories that were ran compared to other news outlets- when you look at it that way, it doesn't seem any more than, say, The Wall Street Journal. So what's the good word? NPR bias? Let's hear it!
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Drug Tests for Welfare?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/us/states-adding-drug-test-as-hurdle-for-welfare.html?pagewanted=1&hp
This is an interesting issue that has really picked up speed over the past couple of years. It's so complex, I find it hard to be able to definitively choose a side.
To break it down:
Our welfare system needs reforming. There are many people that abuse the system. But there are also even more people who do not. Of course no one wants welfare money being used for things it's not supposed to be used for. But is drug testing the way to go? As someone who was on Food Stamps for a while (back in my AmeriCorps days)- it already felt degrading enough when I finally realized that I couldn't survive on the Monopoly money I was paid and needed to get assistance. It was a process where you are made to feel like a bad person and given no sympathy. Is this how we should be treating people? It almost feels like we're kicking people when they're at their lowest.
I guess my question is- is there a better way?
I think back to "Bowling for Columbine"- you don't have to be a Michael Moore fan (I'm on the fence) but the movie does touch on the subject of Welfare to Work, which only let welfare recipients get assistance for so long and then forced them to get minimum wage jobs to cover it. In theory and on paper, this looks good. People are going and making something of themselves not just leeching off the system. But who will raise their kids? That responsibility then falls on the school and it seems like a vicious cycle is starting. I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to such a program. I guess if anything, I'm just trying to point out that it's not as black and white as many like to make it seem- will requiring drug tests be the catalyst to social change that we need to reform our welfare programs? I don't know.
This is an interesting issue that has really picked up speed over the past couple of years. It's so complex, I find it hard to be able to definitively choose a side.
To break it down:
Our welfare system needs reforming. There are many people that abuse the system. But there are also even more people who do not. Of course no one wants welfare money being used for things it's not supposed to be used for. But is drug testing the way to go? As someone who was on Food Stamps for a while (back in my AmeriCorps days)- it already felt degrading enough when I finally realized that I couldn't survive on the Monopoly money I was paid and needed to get assistance. It was a process where you are made to feel like a bad person and given no sympathy. Is this how we should be treating people? It almost feels like we're kicking people when they're at their lowest.
I guess my question is- is there a better way?
I think back to "Bowling for Columbine"- you don't have to be a Michael Moore fan (I'm on the fence) but the movie does touch on the subject of Welfare to Work, which only let welfare recipients get assistance for so long and then forced them to get minimum wage jobs to cover it. In theory and on paper, this looks good. People are going and making something of themselves not just leeching off the system. But who will raise their kids? That responsibility then falls on the school and it seems like a vicious cycle is starting. I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to such a program. I guess if anything, I'm just trying to point out that it's not as black and white as many like to make it seem- will requiring drug tests be the catalyst to social change that we need to reform our welfare programs? I don't know.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Review- Ryan Adams "Ashes and Fire"
So Ryan Adams has a new album out tomorrow. You've been able to listen to it for a while (through NPR, his website, etc) so I figured I'd take the time to give it another full listen through and flush out my thoughts/opinions.
I should point out, for those who don't know- I have been a huge Ryan Adams fan since about my senior year of high school- way back in 2001 when Gold came out. But I can't take credit for discovering it on my own- that goes to my friend Nolan, who shared his music with me and will be joining me at the show in Dec- yay! Figured I should put all my biases out there. Love the music...though I'll admit he can be an asshole a lot.
The first track is called "Dirty Rain" and once you hear it, you'll breathe a sigh of relief. Yes, he's back. Whiskeytown, alt country esque Ryan is finally back. He has been making ok albums, but I'd say his last great album was Cold Roses that he did with the Cardinals back in 2005. Superb double album. This song is very bare bones and allows Ryan to showcase his songwriting abilities. The man has a way with words, sometimes so rich with metaphors and imagery and sometimes so raw and uninhibited with literalness (if that isn't a word, it is now- Update: Dictionary.com says it's a word).
What I've always enjoyed about his good albums were how visual they were. Listen to Heartbreaker and I dare you to convince me you didn't once remember back to a bad breakup. Cold Roses is steeped in images of the South, albeit an idolized South. Gold brings images of everything a road trip should be.
It's overall a much slower and somber album. Mandy Moore and Norah Jones lend some lovely background vocals- and trust me, I was very skeptical of what Mandy Moore would be able to contribute, if anything (listen to "Kindness" and your mind will be changed as well). There are some strings used, but sparingly, which I think works well for him. My beef with string arrangements (and as a former violinist, I love them) is that sometimes the string arrangements can overpower the rest of what's going on, but Adams and producer Glyn Johns took the time to make sure that the string arrangements complimented the song and didn't overtake the rest of the music. The echo on "Do I Wait" just makes it sound so lonely, so isolated, so perfect. Especially once the song picks up in the last minute- combine that echo with some great guitar? Yes, please!
The first single for the album is "Lucky Now" and it's a good introduction to the album- simple arrangement, great production quality and classic Ryan lyricism- "Waiting outside while you find your keys, like bags of trash in the blackening snow..." and it seems like a very self reflective song for him. "And the lights will draw you in, and the dark will take you down, and the night will break your heart...I feel like somebody I don't know, am I really who I was?" And let's face it, after Gold, he's had a lot of lows. So it's nice to see him face some of that through song.
So maybe marriage has grounded him? Or the fact that he is clean again and took 2 years off to recover from some ear disorder? Who knows. All I know is that I'm glad he's back- and hopefully to stay.
I should point out, for those who don't know- I have been a huge Ryan Adams fan since about my senior year of high school- way back in 2001 when Gold came out. But I can't take credit for discovering it on my own- that goes to my friend Nolan, who shared his music with me and will be joining me at the show in Dec- yay! Figured I should put all my biases out there. Love the music...though I'll admit he can be an asshole a lot.
The first track is called "Dirty Rain" and once you hear it, you'll breathe a sigh of relief. Yes, he's back. Whiskeytown, alt country esque Ryan is finally back. He has been making ok albums, but I'd say his last great album was Cold Roses that he did with the Cardinals back in 2005. Superb double album. This song is very bare bones and allows Ryan to showcase his songwriting abilities. The man has a way with words, sometimes so rich with metaphors and imagery and sometimes so raw and uninhibited with literalness (if that isn't a word, it is now- Update: Dictionary.com says it's a word).
What I've always enjoyed about his good albums were how visual they were. Listen to Heartbreaker and I dare you to convince me you didn't once remember back to a bad breakup. Cold Roses is steeped in images of the South, albeit an idolized South. Gold brings images of everything a road trip should be.
It's overall a much slower and somber album. Mandy Moore and Norah Jones lend some lovely background vocals- and trust me, I was very skeptical of what Mandy Moore would be able to contribute, if anything (listen to "Kindness" and your mind will be changed as well). There are some strings used, but sparingly, which I think works well for him. My beef with string arrangements (and as a former violinist, I love them) is that sometimes the string arrangements can overpower the rest of what's going on, but Adams and producer Glyn Johns took the time to make sure that the string arrangements complimented the song and didn't overtake the rest of the music. The echo on "Do I Wait" just makes it sound so lonely, so isolated, so perfect. Especially once the song picks up in the last minute- combine that echo with some great guitar? Yes, please!
The first single for the album is "Lucky Now" and it's a good introduction to the album- simple arrangement, great production quality and classic Ryan lyricism- "Waiting outside while you find your keys, like bags of trash in the blackening snow..." and it seems like a very self reflective song for him. "And the lights will draw you in, and the dark will take you down, and the night will break your heart...I feel like somebody I don't know, am I really who I was?" And let's face it, after Gold, he's had a lot of lows. So it's nice to see him face some of that through song.
So maybe marriage has grounded him? Or the fact that he is clean again and took 2 years off to recover from some ear disorder? Who knows. All I know is that I'm glad he's back- and hopefully to stay.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Baryshnikov Donates to NY Libraries
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/arts/dance/baryshnikov-packs-up-his-memories-in-boxes.html?ref=arts
So Baryshnikov recently donated a ton of his personal things to the NY Public Libraries. Still think libraries aren't relavent? Who do you think has to process all of these items, organize them and then make sure they're in proper condition to be presented to the public? Librarians, that's who.
I can't wait until things are digitized and uploaded- even if you know nothing about ballet, he was an amazing dancer and a great advocate for artistic freedom. I'd love to see some of the videos, so see the evolution of him as a dancer.
So Baryshnikov recently donated a ton of his personal things to the NY Public Libraries. Still think libraries aren't relavent? Who do you think has to process all of these items, organize them and then make sure they're in proper condition to be presented to the public? Librarians, that's who.
I can't wait until things are digitized and uploaded- even if you know nothing about ballet, he was an amazing dancer and a great advocate for artistic freedom. I'd love to see some of the videos, so see the evolution of him as a dancer.
Surgery Late in Life
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/health/research/06medicare.html?ref=health
While this report (as the article brings up) leaves a lot of questions unanswered- many will agree that there has been an increase in surgeries late in life. And the question arises- were they needed/necessary?
I guess this struck a chord with me because it talks about doctor's performing surgeries to try and fix a problem even when they know that it won't necessarily save the patient's life. That's quite an ethical debate- if a doctor knows someone is dying, do they still perform the surgery? Because when it comes to death, sometimes the family isn't always the best judge- you want to hope that any surgery will save someone's life. We aren't always in the best state of mind.
And as anything that involves medical studies, I think to my own life and inevitably to my dad. I was only 10 when he had his accident and as I've grown older my mom has told us (my sisters and I) that it was very touch and go in the hospital in Michigan. There was no certainty he would survive. And I wonder- what if the doctors had just told my mom that they wouldn't continue to do surgeries because they weren't sure it would save his life? It's why I have immense respect for the medical field- would you want to have those decisions weighing on you? I wouldn't.
Since my dad will be having his first open heart surgery up here in Mpls next Friday, I wonder if and when the doctors may say enough is enough. When I step back, it's quite amazing how my dad has squeaked by. He survived his crash and the multiple surgeries that came with that. When being disabled made him less mobile and more sedentary and he started having problems with clogged arteries, he survived the surgery to have stints put in. When fluid that collected in his fake knee got staph infection, went into his bloodstream and went septic in his body- somehow he survived that too (though that one was the VA's fault for not alerting us that he had staph infection).
Even though it's an old hat for me, I'm always nervous for him. Even though his mortality has been something I've been grappling with for 17 years, it never gets easier. It's interesting- on the one hand, I'm constantly amazed at the strength of the human body and how my dad's body has been so resilient. On the other hand, I would never wish upon my worst enemy the feeling that any sickness could be the last, that every surgery is a life risk.
So I guess, after that giant tangent- I'm left wondering, how do doctor's go about determining when a surgery is necessary or not?
While this report (as the article brings up) leaves a lot of questions unanswered- many will agree that there has been an increase in surgeries late in life. And the question arises- were they needed/necessary?
I guess this struck a chord with me because it talks about doctor's performing surgeries to try and fix a problem even when they know that it won't necessarily save the patient's life. That's quite an ethical debate- if a doctor knows someone is dying, do they still perform the surgery? Because when it comes to death, sometimes the family isn't always the best judge- you want to hope that any surgery will save someone's life. We aren't always in the best state of mind.
And as anything that involves medical studies, I think to my own life and inevitably to my dad. I was only 10 when he had his accident and as I've grown older my mom has told us (my sisters and I) that it was very touch and go in the hospital in Michigan. There was no certainty he would survive. And I wonder- what if the doctors had just told my mom that they wouldn't continue to do surgeries because they weren't sure it would save his life? It's why I have immense respect for the medical field- would you want to have those decisions weighing on you? I wouldn't.
Since my dad will be having his first open heart surgery up here in Mpls next Friday, I wonder if and when the doctors may say enough is enough. When I step back, it's quite amazing how my dad has squeaked by. He survived his crash and the multiple surgeries that came with that. When being disabled made him less mobile and more sedentary and he started having problems with clogged arteries, he survived the surgery to have stints put in. When fluid that collected in his fake knee got staph infection, went into his bloodstream and went septic in his body- somehow he survived that too (though that one was the VA's fault for not alerting us that he had staph infection).
Even though it's an old hat for me, I'm always nervous for him. Even though his mortality has been something I've been grappling with for 17 years, it never gets easier. It's interesting- on the one hand, I'm constantly amazed at the strength of the human body and how my dad's body has been so resilient. On the other hand, I would never wish upon my worst enemy the feeling that any sickness could be the last, that every surgery is a life risk.
So I guess, after that giant tangent- I'm left wondering, how do doctor's go about determining when a surgery is necessary or not?
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Farmers Strain to Hire Americans
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/us/farmers-strain-to-hire-american-workers-in-place-of-migrant-labor.html?_r=1&hp
I found this article interesting because it is somewhat of a head scratcher- there are farmers, willing to pay at least $10.50/hour (which may not seem like much, but if you're unemployed can add up to some extra cash every month) to anyone that wants to work their lands during summers. But they can't find locals and instead have to bring in more migrant workers from Mexico.
This made me remember back to when I was 15 and got my first job working for Dekalb/Monsanto for the summer. We were outside every day (unless it was pouring rain) working 9 hours in lovely Iowa heat and humidity. But since I was a desperate teen in need of cash, it was this or work in a restaurant. Yes- it is hard work. It requires a lot of the same monotone movements, lots of bending, walking, etc. All in all- you exercise. A lot.
So I can understand why some in the story quit the farm work. But a job is a job in my book. And these farmers would love to work with locals instead of migrant workers- but they can't get enough workers. Does this mean people haven't hit rock bottom yet? I'm not sure. But if I was unemployed, any work is better than no work. You don't get to be picky when you've got nothing. I guess some people really need to see the bottom of the barrel before they'll take a job that requires rolling up your sleeves and doing some good old fashioned hard labor.
I found this article interesting because it is somewhat of a head scratcher- there are farmers, willing to pay at least $10.50/hour (which may not seem like much, but if you're unemployed can add up to some extra cash every month) to anyone that wants to work their lands during summers. But they can't find locals and instead have to bring in more migrant workers from Mexico.
This made me remember back to when I was 15 and got my first job working for Dekalb/Monsanto for the summer. We were outside every day (unless it was pouring rain) working 9 hours in lovely Iowa heat and humidity. But since I was a desperate teen in need of cash, it was this or work in a restaurant. Yes- it is hard work. It requires a lot of the same monotone movements, lots of bending, walking, etc. All in all- you exercise. A lot.
So I can understand why some in the story quit the farm work. But a job is a job in my book. And these farmers would love to work with locals instead of migrant workers- but they can't get enough workers. Does this mean people haven't hit rock bottom yet? I'm not sure. But if I was unemployed, any work is better than no work. You don't get to be picky when you've got nothing. I guess some people really need to see the bottom of the barrel before they'll take a job that requires rolling up your sleeves and doing some good old fashioned hard labor.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
I guess Hank's friends are really rowdy...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/10/03/141027499/espn-pulls-hank-williams-jr-song-from-mnf-over-hitler-remark?sc=fb&cc=fp
So ESPN is pulling Hank Williams, Jr's song from Monday Night Football (no word on whether this is temporary or permanent) because of some remarks made on Fox and Friends.
I do understand where ESPN is coming on this one- they usually try to keep politics out of national sports and after Williams called Obama Hitler they knew they'd alienate a lot of fans. From a marketing/PR standpoint, it made sense.
But I think this problem could have easily been avoided if we stopped thinking that music artists and other celebrities of the like have this great insight on politics. Of course, I understand musicians/other celebrities will make endorsements- that's nothing new. But why would you bring someone on a show and ask for their political insight if they really have no background in politics? What's the point?
It's kind of the double edged sword of the Iowa caucuses. On the one hand, all of the candidates visit a state that would never get a visit otherwise. On the other hand, you also get a bunch of random celebrities who show up to bring numbers in. And as someone who was around for a caucus, it is fun. Hell, it's how I got to meet Stephen Colbert. But when I would see these celebrities (Martin Sheen, Joan Jett, Leo DiCaprio, etc) I never thought they were offering any unique insight, because they had no idea what life was like for ordinary Iowans.
I guess, as you can tell, I'm torn. On the one hand I understand celebrities getting their noses in politics is old news. But on the other hand- it seems like it has gotten worse with the advent of 24 news channels- they need to fill airspace, so they'll take whoever. I mean, why would Hank Williams, Jr be considered someone worthy to talk about the GOP candidates with?
So ESPN is pulling Hank Williams, Jr's song from Monday Night Football (no word on whether this is temporary or permanent) because of some remarks made on Fox and Friends.
I do understand where ESPN is coming on this one- they usually try to keep politics out of national sports and after Williams called Obama Hitler they knew they'd alienate a lot of fans. From a marketing/PR standpoint, it made sense.
But I think this problem could have easily been avoided if we stopped thinking that music artists and other celebrities of the like have this great insight on politics. Of course, I understand musicians/other celebrities will make endorsements- that's nothing new. But why would you bring someone on a show and ask for their political insight if they really have no background in politics? What's the point?
It's kind of the double edged sword of the Iowa caucuses. On the one hand, all of the candidates visit a state that would never get a visit otherwise. On the other hand, you also get a bunch of random celebrities who show up to bring numbers in. And as someone who was around for a caucus, it is fun. Hell, it's how I got to meet Stephen Colbert. But when I would see these celebrities (Martin Sheen, Joan Jett, Leo DiCaprio, etc) I never thought they were offering any unique insight, because they had no idea what life was like for ordinary Iowans.
I guess, as you can tell, I'm torn. On the one hand I understand celebrities getting their noses in politics is old news. But on the other hand- it seems like it has gotten worse with the advent of 24 news channels- they need to fill airspace, so they'll take whoever. I mean, why would Hank Williams, Jr be considered someone worthy to talk about the GOP candidates with?
Monday, October 3, 2011
Changes to GI Bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/opinion/a-broader-gi-bill.html?_r=1&hp
I'll admit that I obviously have a bias towards this subject, since I am the daughter of a Vet. My dad did not use the GI Bill for education though. But it was interesting to learn how much money from the GI Bill was being used towards for profit institutions and a decent percentage were never graduating.
There has been news in the past few months regarding the shadiness of for profit colleges. I'd suggest looking into that if you're a novice on the subject.
I'll admit that I obviously have a bias towards this subject, since I am the daughter of a Vet. My dad did not use the GI Bill for education though. But it was interesting to learn how much money from the GI Bill was being used towards for profit institutions and a decent percentage were never graduating.
There has been news in the past few months regarding the shadiness of for profit colleges. I'd suggest looking into that if you're a novice on the subject.
Thailand- be nice to the king and don't even think about purchasing "The King and I"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/world/asia/03iht-thailand03.html?pagewanted=1&ref=world
Thailand is quite the interesting country. I could go on and on about the beauty, but if you want more on that, go there for yourself. But man, do they love their King. Forget the British Royals- the Thais have an internest task force whose only job is to block or shut down websites (and arrest those that published them, if they can find them) that in any way speak badly of the Thai Royal Family. It's pretty hardcore.
Also, fun fact- it is illegal in Thailand to have a copy of The King and I.
Thailand is quite the interesting country. I could go on and on about the beauty, but if you want more on that, go there for yourself. But man, do they love their King. Forget the British Royals- the Thais have an internest task force whose only job is to block or shut down websites (and arrest those that published them, if they can find them) that in any way speak badly of the Thai Royal Family. It's pretty hardcore.
Also, fun fact- it is illegal in Thailand to have a copy of The King and I.
Weekend Wrap Up
There was a lot of news over the weekend...but in classic me fashion, I tend to not be plugged in on the weekends as much. So this may be your chance to school me- share a link of an interesting weekend story. You get the satisfaction of knowing that you are obviously superior to me when it comes to weekend news.
Sidenote to Sara Neppl- Hanson was in town playing on Sunday and I thought of you.
So if I wasn't plugged into the world, then what the hell was I up to? I spent about 2 hours Saturday morning waiting in line for Ryan Adams tickets (and made out quite well if I do say so myself). Sat night was dedicated to bonfire/friends/The Big Lebowski/sleepover/morning quiche!
Sunday I did get some media time in- I watched the Vikings suck once again and watched Ken Burns Prohibition.
Sidenote to Sara Neppl- Hanson was in town playing on Sunday and I thought of you.
So if I wasn't plugged into the world, then what the hell was I up to? I spent about 2 hours Saturday morning waiting in line for Ryan Adams tickets (and made out quite well if I do say so myself). Sat night was dedicated to bonfire/friends/The Big Lebowski/sleepover/morning quiche!
Sunday I did get some media time in- I watched the Vikings suck once again and watched Ken Burns Prohibition.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)