Education Reform

This evening in my Ethnic Diversity class we were talking about the Chicano "Walk Out" movement in LA in the 1960's.  This got me thinking about current situations in the educational system.

Firstly, it is important to realize what causes poor education.  Poor education is a result of poor resources.  Poor resources include incompetent teachers, outdated text, etc.  These poor resources come from poor funding.  Schools are funded largely by property taxes paid by residents of the school district.  Property taxes are based on home values, and home values vary by location.  What can cause home values to decrease? Here's a hint: Why do most real estate resources offer demographic information on the residents of the area the property is in?  Unfortunately, large numbers of minority races lower home values.  People with lower incomes in an area will also lower home values.  This means that the taxes are lower because the home values are lower.  Lower taxes mean less funding for the educational system in that area.  The youths most at need - the lower class minority groups - have less funding and poorer resources available to them.  In the long run, this means they are less prepared for college.  Lack of college educations means they will continue to make a lower income than those more educated.  Lower income keeps them in lower income areas where their children will go to poorly funded schools.

Obviously, there is a vicious cycle that needs to be ended in the lower income, primarily urban educational settings.  How can we make a change?  We need to make attempts to even the playing field.  Perhaps all property taxes should be pooled nationally and allotted to schools based on number of students.  Perhaps the funding system should be completely reorganized so that it doesn't have an economic/locational bias at all.  There are many ideas floating around in my head on what can be done to help.  One thing that doesn't seem right is that the educational issues for these areas has not been in debate for the upcoming elections at all.  Do your elected representatives in congress even know that it is an ongoing issue?  Maybe you should write them. Actually, you probably should.

Homosexual Rights

The topic has been in the news a lot this year - what rights should homosexuals be legally entitled to? Can they serve in the military? Can they marry each other? Can they adopt children?

There is a debate on whether sexual orientation is a choice or not. If it is, then sexual orientation is as important a choice as religious preference, political identification, or language spoken.  If people are born with a preset sexual orientation with no choice to choose it, then it is much like eye color, left or right handedness, or race.  I do not want to explore the argument of sexual orientation versus sexual preference today, but I wanted to make it clear that for the topic I would like to explore today, it doesn't matter. There are laws that prevent discrimination against both chosen and innate human traits, and those laws should be used as precedent when considering legislation involving homosexuality.

The news article that got my mind working this week about the blatant discrimination against homosexuals was one in which a young man committed suicide after his sexual encounter with another man was broadcast online. Clearly, the most blatant problem here is the invasion of privacy, and would have been upsetting to a heterosexual individual as well.  This instance, however, brings into light the substantial bullying that LGBTQ*'s are put through.   An interesting tidbit from an article on the statistics surrounding bullying of LGBTQ students is that they are two to three times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual students.  It is really sad that the prejudices of society lead to the deaths of innocent young people.

From there, news of the GOP NY gubernatorial candidate trying to protect children from the harmful effects of assuming homosexuals are equal caught my eye. He states, "I just think my children and your children will be much better off and much more successful if getting married and raising a family." So do I, but why can't homosexual couples get married and have a family? It is the work of conservative political restraints that keeps LGBTQ individuals from getting married and raising children, not the sexual orientation of these people.  If this man was serious about that statement, he would be pro-same sex marriage and pro-same sex parents, and then he wouldn't have to worry about "dysfunctional homosexuals" ruining the normalcy of our children.

The big one in the media currently is the attempts being made to reverse the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the armed forces.  The policy bans homosexuals from being open about their homosexuality while serving in the military and states that a member can be discharged if their sexuality is revealed to be anything other than heterosexual.  President Obama has promised to attempt to repeal the law, but it appears that he is facing some pretty strong opposition.  Supporters of the ban state that morale and readiness for action would suffer in the military branches if homosexuals were allowed to be open about their sexual orientation.  I think that what many people are forgetting is that homosexuals are already in the armed forces.  They are not banned from joining the military, and I am certain that there are vast numbers of LGBTQ members already participating in defending our country.  Repealing the ban is not going to allow homosexuals to enter the military - they are already allowed to - it will allow the members to remain in the service of protecting us, regardless of their sexual orientation.  Won't morale improve for those servicemen and women who are hiding themselves and living in constant fear of "being found out?" Don't you think that those people are going to be much more willing to go to action to save our country if our country supported them? I think we are disrespecting those who risk their lives for us by damning them if they reveal a facet of themselves which has nothing to do with the job they perform.

Overall, I support the "integration" of LGBTQ individuals into the rights and privileges assumed for heterosexuals.  I see no harm in opening the minds of members of society to include the notion of equality for each and every person.  Fifty years ago, we were overcoming the idea that the Negro was inferior to the White Man, and now that just seems silly.  Look at us.  What's the difference?  LGBTQ's are not a generalization - they are human beings with emotions, choices, and families - and they should have RIGHTS. I am not the only one who thinks this way.  American approval of gay marriage is rising, and just the fact that these stories are making their way into the media means that they are of debate and importance.

*LGBTQ stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning

Tesla Model S

I'm sure you remember my post on the Tesla Roadster and how it was epically fantastic, super fast, very expensive etc. Check this out!

It's Tesla's next production car called the Model S. It is another all electric vehicle requiring absolutely no gasoline. It is available with three different battery packs - 160 mile range, 230 mile range, and 300 mile range. It charges like the Roadster does, in any grounded outlet. It has a 45 minute quick charge option to get you going when you need to. It is a bit slower than the Roadster, with 0-60 in 5.6 seconds and a top speed of only 120 mph. (When do I drive faster than 120 mph?) I'm thinking it took some stylistic cues from the Aston Martin Rapide:

Tesla Model S

Aston Martin Rapide

The Model S doesn't use it's long nose to house a super powerful V12, so the hood actually opens to storage space, much like the Porsche 911. 

The best part of this car is the price. Competing cars price out like this:

• BMW 7 series hybrid (17/26 mpg) starts at $102,300 in the USA
• Lexus GS450h (22/25 mpg) starts at $57,950 in the USA
• Mercedes S400 hybrid (19/26 mpg) starts at $87,950 in the USA

And the Model S (drumroll please!) has INFINITE mpg and starts at $49,000. I think we have a winner.

MRI

Yesterday in my Cognitive Psych class, we were talking about various ways to examine the brain, and when we got to fMRI's, all I could think of were these:

Watermelon

Corn on the Cob

Cantelope

The Other Boleyn Girl

 

I recently saw this movie for the first time, although I have owned it for a very long time. I honestly thought it was going to be quite boring, but it was FANTASTIC! It's a little long, at just under two hours run time, but well worth it! It is all about Anne Boleyn and her sister, Mary. They are both forced upon King Henry VIII by their father and uncle in order for their family to obtain a higher status in England. The king is a very promiscuous man who continuously flits from woman to woman, but cannot seem to get the Boleyn girls off of his mind. Definitely worth seeing. Oh, and to top it all off, Jim Sturgess, the hottie from Across the Universe and 21, plays George Boleyn. <3

Sleeperstar

In June, I got a phone call at work from some guys that were stranded on the side of the interstate a few miles away. We were super duper slow, so although we rarely do this, I went to pick them and their tire up so we could get it replaced for them. Turns out, they were a band (named Sleeperstar) on their way to Milwaukee for Summerfest! Sweet!

They hooked me up with a copy of their new album and a band tee for helping them out, which was both unexpected and awesome. Long story short, I listened to the cd on my way home and it only came out to be ripped to my computer for iPod-age. I love it! They are fantastic and should definitely be downloaded by all!

Here's some pics from their blog of the rescue:

"Naked" Motorcycle Riders

Today's post on stupid people is dedicated to "naked" motorcycle riders.

Yesterday, I actually saw a passenger on the back of a motorcycle on the interstate wearing a bikini top, daisy dukes, and NO HELMET. It was disgusting. Don't people care at all if they live or die? According to 2003 statistics from the Department of Transportation, helmets are 37% effective in preventing fatalities in motor vehicle collisions. This 37% takes into account that a helmet will not prevent a rider from injuries incurred to parts of the body other than the head. (So, a helmet will not save you from a bumper through the abdomen, but hey, we can't all win.) Although there is a HUGE decrease in helmet usage. 2000 statistics indicated that 71% of motorcycle riders were wearing helmets compared to the 2003 stats that indicated only 58% of riders using helmets.

These statistics are only referencing accidents in which the motorcycle was killed. Imagine how many people who were not wearing helmets DID NOT DIE, but sustained serious head injuries... and are now getting crayons and coloring books for the remainder of their birthdays. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, riders not wearing helmets are three times more likely to sustain serious brain injuries than those riders wearing helmets.

It's a no brainer (pun intended) that motorcyclists should protect themselves. In a study conducted by the University of Southern California, 900 motorcyclists who had been involved in accidents were surveyed. Sixty percent of them were not wearing helmets at the time of the accident, and 53% of the unhelmeted riders said that they were not wearing helmets because they "simply had no expectation of accident involvement."