There have been three republican debates this September. I don't know if anybody else has seen them, but as a person who has watched them all unfold, I've gotten discouraged and I couldn't help but notice how they all go the exact same way - the host first questions Mitt Romney and Rick Perry and lets them fight it out, and then moves on to the other contenders, most of whom never answer the questions asked and simply revert back to talking points. All of the candidates get about a minute or thirty seconds to answer - an utter insult to the audience since it isn't nearly enough time to get to know the candidates. And when the candidates don't know what to say, they just go about trashing President Obama and talking about his failed record.
For the record, I'm not a big supporter of president Obama. I'm writing this post as an independent trying to understand the current political situation.
And the truth of the matter is, with so little time to answer questions, the candidates score quick points by ignoring all the questions and going back to talking points and quick jabs at Obama. I think the media is doing this on purpose, knowing that people at home watch the debates because most of them are just looking for a fun reality show to watch after work. And that is exactly what the media gives them.
It is sad that at a time when the American economy and financial system is falling apart, the media and the contenders are not honest with the American people. Instead of helping inform the public, it seems like the media and the candidates work together to insure that the American people stay as ignorant as they are now. These debates are an insult to the American people, and the real solutions to America's mess will not be found in them. Hopefully, people will wise up and open their mind to independent research.
Unfortunately, it seems like politics has gone on like this in America for a long time.And even as America faces an increasing amount of problems, politicians seem to incorporate more and more rhetoric.
What do you think? Is this unique to America?
Monday, September 26, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Is the ACT Really a Good Measurement of Anything?
Just last weekend I was forced to crawl out of bed at seven o'clock, spend four and a half hours taking the ACT, and return back to my house at one o'clock, all tired and exhausted. Upon looking back at the experience, I have come to realize that its incredible that my near future heavily depends on how I did. The ACT is nothing more than a test to see how well someone can work quickly, stay calm, remain focused, and follow directions. And to think that colleges are using the results of this test to make vital application decisions is simply astounding.
During the four and a half hours, I spent 10 minutes on a break, and practically all the remaining 4 hours and 20 minutes on the mathematics, English, reading, science, and writing sections of the test, rushing through the pages in such a hurry that I barely remembered anything once I had finished. In fact, for some sections you I only got about 20 seconds to answer each question! Now, one has to wonder: what is the point of such a rush? Will any real life situation really require four hours of uttermost concentration without even a short moment to blow off some steam? Of course not. The makers of the ACT think that if a person is incapable of accomplishing something in an enormous rush, he or she doesn't deserve to go to a quality college. But this really doesn't make any sense, because almost all real life situations will give people the chance to slow down, soak it all in, and think with much smaller time restrictions.
Because of the ridiculously short amount of time, the makers of the ACT test people on their ability to answer many easy, shallow questions instead of important, big picture, challenging ones that really require people to demonstrate their skills. In total, there are 60 questions on the math test, 75 on the English test, and 40 each on the reading and science tests. That's 215 questions in total! But you have to wonder: can 215 multiple choice questions, that probably averaged about 30 seconds per question, really measure somebody's individuality and potential? I don't think so. These questions don't test for uniqueness or originality - they just encourage all students to think in the same way. In the end, students are forced to think without any creativity and answer the same shallow questions as anyone else.
I know that this may have sounded a bit like a rant, but this test made me very frustrated. I don't necessarily think I did poorly, I'm just upset with the whole educational testing system that we have in place here in the United States.
During the four and a half hours, I spent 10 minutes on a break, and practically all the remaining 4 hours and 20 minutes on the mathematics, English, reading, science, and writing sections of the test, rushing through the pages in such a hurry that I barely remembered anything once I had finished. In fact, for some sections you I only got about 20 seconds to answer each question! Now, one has to wonder: what is the point of such a rush? Will any real life situation really require four hours of uttermost concentration without even a short moment to blow off some steam? Of course not. The makers of the ACT think that if a person is incapable of accomplishing something in an enormous rush, he or she doesn't deserve to go to a quality college. But this really doesn't make any sense, because almost all real life situations will give people the chance to slow down, soak it all in, and think with much smaller time restrictions.
Because of the ridiculously short amount of time, the makers of the ACT test people on their ability to answer many easy, shallow questions instead of important, big picture, challenging ones that really require people to demonstrate their skills. In total, there are 60 questions on the math test, 75 on the English test, and 40 each on the reading and science tests. That's 215 questions in total! But you have to wonder: can 215 multiple choice questions, that probably averaged about 30 seconds per question, really measure somebody's individuality and potential? I don't think so. These questions don't test for uniqueness or originality - they just encourage all students to think in the same way. In the end, students are forced to think without any creativity and answer the same shallow questions as anyone else.
I know that this may have sounded a bit like a rant, but this test made me very frustrated. I don't necessarily think I did poorly, I'm just upset with the whole educational testing system that we have in place here in the United States.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
9/11: Why does it unite Americans this way?
While glancing at the news today, I came across the realization that almost every single front page story was about the tenth anniversary of 9/11. And then I wondered: what is it that makes all Americans come together in remembrance of this day? Why is it that Americans fight for over 350 days of the year but treat this day with such unity? I thought about it and came up with a theory. There are two main reasons for this behavior:
1.) Americans view 9/11 as a personal attack on themselves and their close ones. Compared to many acts of violence in this country, 9/11 was not specifically directed at a certain group of people - it was directed at the general population. Since innocent civilians were the targets of the attack, people began to think of their own lives. Anybody could have perished on that fateful day. It was just a matter of coincidence that certain people were targets for the terrorists and others weren't. This sense of fear and concern is a main reason for the unity seen on this day.
2.) Americans, as different as they are, feel like they belong to one, single country. When a major landmark in New York was struck by commercial planes, to many it felt as if America was falling apart. So although there was no direct impact on most people, Americans began to feel as if a part of them had been taken away by the terrorists. America is an idea - an idea based on freedom, liberty, and justice - and Americans felt as if they lost this idea following the attack. So when 9/11 came by today, most people came together to support the message of America.
I'm proud that the fellow citizens of our country are able to find a day to unite and stand strong. If you watch a lot of news as I do, you are probably tired of the fighting going on - as justifiable as it may be. But even though I take a strong political stance as well, I believe its necessary for Americans to understand that as important as politics may be, there are innocent lives that were lost ten years ago that need to be remembered.
1.) Americans view 9/11 as a personal attack on themselves and their close ones. Compared to many acts of violence in this country, 9/11 was not specifically directed at a certain group of people - it was directed at the general population. Since innocent civilians were the targets of the attack, people began to think of their own lives. Anybody could have perished on that fateful day. It was just a matter of coincidence that certain people were targets for the terrorists and others weren't. This sense of fear and concern is a main reason for the unity seen on this day.
2.) Americans, as different as they are, feel like they belong to one, single country. When a major landmark in New York was struck by commercial planes, to many it felt as if America was falling apart. So although there was no direct impact on most people, Americans began to feel as if a part of them had been taken away by the terrorists. America is an idea - an idea based on freedom, liberty, and justice - and Americans felt as if they lost this idea following the attack. So when 9/11 came by today, most people came together to support the message of America.
I'm proud that the fellow citizens of our country are able to find a day to unite and stand strong. If you watch a lot of news as I do, you are probably tired of the fighting going on - as justifiable as it may be. But even though I take a strong political stance as well, I believe its necessary for Americans to understand that as important as politics may be, there are innocent lives that were lost ten years ago that need to be remembered.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Hurricanes Benefiting the Economy?
In the aftermath of Hurricane Irene about a week ago, I went online to check the news about the disaster. The first article I clicked on actually made me laugh out loud. Believe it or not, the title of the article ran along the lines of this: "Could hurricane Irene help the economy? Rebuilding as Stimulus". The very thought that a disaster could supposedly "stimulate" the economy seemed preposterous to me. If this logic were correct wouldn't it make sense to destroy all the great things humanity has ever created just so we could rebuild? Of course not. Unfortunately, this is a common fallacy in today's economic thinking.
Let's say somebody throws a rock at a store's window and shatters the glass. The store owner is now forced to waste his savings on replacing the window. He pays the window company, which in turn makes the window company more profitable.
Is this an economic stimulus?
The obvious answers is no. Many people tend to look at one end of the puzzle instead of looking at the whole thing. By using up his savings, the store owner lost capitol that could have been used for things that would actually advance society - for example, he could have used that money to create a service or product that people actually wanted to buy. But instead, he payed the window replacement company, and no new wealth was created. This is important to note: although the window company may have gotten more money and hired more people, no new wealth was ultimately created.
Now, let's expand this logic to Hurricane Irene. Sure, construction companies will get a short term boost, but other companies and industries will suffer tremendously. In fact, a whole lot of small businesses could be wiped out altogether. And in the end, a whole lot of savings will have been spent on helping companies that offer no new wealth to society.
And this brings us to my final point. Many people these days have the flawed belief that the ultimate goal of an economy is to get as many people working as possible. But these same people fail to recognize that jobs are just a means to the end - the real purpose of an economy is to create wealth, and jobs are just the medium through which this happens. Would an economy really benefit if we had people digging holes in the ground just for the sake of employment?
Let's say somebody throws a rock at a store's window and shatters the glass. The store owner is now forced to waste his savings on replacing the window. He pays the window company, which in turn makes the window company more profitable.
Is this an economic stimulus?
The obvious answers is no. Many people tend to look at one end of the puzzle instead of looking at the whole thing. By using up his savings, the store owner lost capitol that could have been used for things that would actually advance society - for example, he could have used that money to create a service or product that people actually wanted to buy. But instead, he payed the window replacement company, and no new wealth was created. This is important to note: although the window company may have gotten more money and hired more people, no new wealth was ultimately created.
Now, let's expand this logic to Hurricane Irene. Sure, construction companies will get a short term boost, but other companies and industries will suffer tremendously. In fact, a whole lot of small businesses could be wiped out altogether. And in the end, a whole lot of savings will have been spent on helping companies that offer no new wealth to society.
And this brings us to my final point. Many people these days have the flawed belief that the ultimate goal of an economy is to get as many people working as possible. But these same people fail to recognize that jobs are just a means to the end - the real purpose of an economy is to create wealth, and jobs are just the medium through which this happens. Would an economy really benefit if we had people digging holes in the ground just for the sake of employment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)