A Creative Solution, a La Noir

Today, I'm skipping the social sarcasm in favor of lighter fare. What follows is the result of telling an exhausted journalism major (who is known to have a vindictive streak) that you do not care that they have no resources to go purchase something and review it. 

That you just need something by deadline. And that "it can be anything. Just write something."

Oh, you poor person. You've known me longer than that. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There are a great many uses of color in our world. Our eyes use it to distinguish outlines and form, artists use it to express emotion, clothiers use it to enhance the appearance of the various styles and outfits they create. And while all colors are useful, and have a place and time, perhaps the most versatile is black.

The old fashion saying that black goes with anything is incredibly accurate. A splash of black in a garden, using pavers or paint, highlights bright flowers, or delineates the borders clearly. Using it in mobiles or getting a black gazing ball adds just that hint of elegance that can elevate a garden. Black gravel and sand used to create a Zen garden adds a hint of mystery to a peaceful meditation spot.

Used indoors, black can create relief for the eyes in a brightly colored room, drawing the eye from oasis to oasis and calling attention to various points. Slipcovers or table cloths in black can bring disparate furniture together for those on a budget. They’ll also match more readily and have less chance of clashing as they fade than printed patterns, or bright colors. 

For clothing, black is fantastic for everything from a full outfit, to just a few accents. Black head to toe can give an impression of neatness and professionalism, even if it’s jeans and a polo. It’s a bit easier to hide stains in most black fabrics, making it a good choice for those who might be working with materials that can stain. It’s supposedly slimming, though I’ve yet to see firm evidence of that. Accents, such as jewelry, watches, bandanas and so on, are easier to use when black, since they swap and mix with nearly any outfit. 

Black has found its way into so many aspect of our lives. It’s the color we write and print in most commonly, making it the primary color of our language. It denotes authority and power, being the color of many police cars, the color associated with the Secret Service, the color of SWAT officers in action. 

It’s also the color of rebellion, of leather, and motorcycles, or tattoo outlines, and metal band t-shirts. It’s the color of night, and sleep, and can mean peace.

No matter what the fashionistas might claim, black is the new black. Also the old black, and the current black. Accept no substitutes.

Rating: A

JEREMY CLOUD

Community Writer

Tales from Facebook: The Idiocy of Social Political Media

Gather round kiddies, it's time for Uncle Jeremy to yell about the problems in the world again. What shall we yell about today? 

Politics. Yay! That subject that can make the veins in Uncle Jeremy's neck stand out and destroy his vocal cords as he shouts and raves for hours and hours. Fun for the whole family!

Joking aside, I've noticed a distinct trend lately in my social media. Namely, that a full 3/4 of my feed on Facebook is being filled with ideological grandstanding in the form of catchy memes and flat statements. Now, I love each and every one of you, but with a few exceptions  (for people I know to be serious political junkies, or smart enough to stay out of it) I find myself driven to ask.

Did all of you sleep through civics!?

I mean really, there's this, this one's a gem, have yet another and oh, these are real crowd pleasers. What the bloody blazes are you people on?

Now before you get all grouchy, the reason most of these are pro-Democrat would be because I know a lot of Democrats. But to be absolutely clear, I hate both parties. But we'll get to that.

So, this. Wow. This is idiotic on so many levels I could cry tears in such abundance, and expressive of rage so strong, I could use my tears as acid and melt a small country. That's not a party platform, nitwits. That's a list of nice things the Democrats have said they'll do. This, right here, is the Dem's party platform. Please note that it's thirty-two pages long, and includes far more than that adorable little meme. For fun, here's the GOP party platform.

So, when you post that meme, and then say you agree with the Dem's party platform, it's roughly equivalent to signing a cell phone or work contract, and only reading the page that says "have a shiny phone," or "we'll build you a dream house."

Unless you agree with everything in there, don't freakin' say you agree with their whole platform. You might like elements of their platform, you might agree with a large part of it. But quite frankly, for all you know there's a sub–clause that plans to give aliens the right to your firstborn in the event of an invasion. And you wouldn't know, because you haven't bloody well read it.

Onwards to meme numbers two and three! These represent what is perhaps the most infuriating part of inter-party warfare: nonsense statements, outright lies, manipulation, and pre-school name calling serving in the stead of rational thought and clear discussion about the issues.

Meme number two is a rather horrific little toy. It claims to depict a racist bias at the Republican National Convention, and a lack of such bias at the Democratic National Convention. The basic message, as some of the comments below the picture clarify, is that you are a racist pig if you vote Republican. This is a load of bull.

First of all, the pictures were most likely screen captures from live footage. The RNC had anywhere between 2,300 and 4,500 delegates and alternates present; the DNC has about 6,000 delegates over the whole event. That doesn't include support staff, delegate staff, speakers and their staffs, and any of the host of reporters, bloggers, writers, pundits, celebrities, and all of their staff members and support crews. A freaking child armed with iMovie could find those shots. 

And they mean nothing. Not one. Damn. Thing. 

I can, right now go and find footage that, properly edited, would present evidence for: Obama being racist, Romney being gay, Mary Poppins being the Antichrist, and Barney the freaking Dinosaur taking out Rambo.

Seriously, think about all the YouTube videos that take lines from Harry Potter and make the dialogue depict a relationship between any of the male leads. It's convincing if well done, to the point that someone who hasn't seen the movies (I'm sure there's someone, all right?) might think it was a scene from the movie.

And that's editing video, where it all has to line up to lead the eye, where the sound has to match, where any one of a dozen little things can blows the whole game away. Still images? Dude, even without Photoshop or any of it's knockoffs, just choosing the perfect frame to convey a message is child's play if you know what you're after.

Editing is a beautiful, terrible tool, and when it's an edit meant to capture a single frame of a video, there's very little that can't be done. Especially if there's a vast sea of raw footage to choose from!

Meme number three comes at the problem from the other direction. It asserts that rather than Obama being "stupid" for not "fixing" all the issues, rather the people that voted for him are stupid. The implication is that there's no reason to bother with anything the Democrats are saying. Because they're stupid. And who listens to stupid people?

Well, if that kind of thinking takes hold, there goes any hope of fixing anything. Politicians really don't work well together, mostly because they don't actually work that often. 90% of their job is selling themselves for the next vote coming up. And when they do work, the best way to get noticed is to raise huge social concerns, then offer sweeping plans that may or may not work to fix these issues.  Or, better yet, block such an initiative from a counterpart in the other party.

But since the House and Senate have to agree to some extent to get anything done, we the people are fairly screwed, because they spend so much time playing games "for the good of the nation" that they don't actually solve very many of the issues they are constitutionally bound to deal with. 

And no, throwing one of the parties out wouldn't do jack for us either. A single party in power would essentially be a oligarchy. The platform, every little nick and ding, would probably get passed, there'd be little competition, and very little ideological discussion or growth. More parties might help in the short run, but then they'd just form coalitions and factions. Which, as I think about it, would at least be entertaining to watch.

The second, implication, by the way, if the obvious one that anyone who votes for Obama is a nitwit that should be strung up by their heels and shot for having the audacity of putting an incompetent in the White House. I'm not even going to get into this, because I've covered it a little before. But to lay this one out in brief, it's not actually the President's job to fix anything. That would be Congress's job. Don't believe me? Here: have some links. Go check. I'll wait.

Read all that? Well, then it's probably been a couple of hours since you've been here, at least. So I'll move on now. One more to go.

These polls, which take advantage of the model set out by the wonderfully useful Change.org, essentially call for potential voters to come and "stand by their candidate." 

Oy. 

Let's kick this off by clarifying something. And then you can go bloody well look it up yourself.  The people do not elect the president. The people have next to nothing to do with electing the president. The president is the representative and executive of Congress. We can elect congresspeople, which is great. Seeing as how they're actually the one's in charge, and all. But while we might nominate candidates, the delegates selected by Congress choose the president.

So, "your candidate" is pretty much some guy you don't really know who's being chosen by some other guys you don't like to do a job you don't understand. And those polls are asking for two things: first that you walk up to these guys you don't like, and tell them how great this one guy you don't know would be at a job you know next to nothing about. 

Second, as long as you're backing a guy you don't know for a job you don't understand, why not kick in a few bucks so he can convince a few more people to come tell his prospective bosses how great he'd be?

Oh, and the way they ask you to "sign your name?" That's nothing to do with asking you to show your party pride, and everything to do with getting you on their mailing list. Once you've told these people you hate how great this guy you don't know is, the guy's people will bury you in reminders about how awful that other guy is, reminders about how great this guy is, and hey, we're a bit broke again, spare a $5?

Long story short, and in summation: if you honestly believe that the soundbites you pick up from press releases of politicians saying what they think you want to hear are the sum total of what the party backing them wants, you are a moron. Before you back a party's play, go friggin' find out what you're backing, you numbskull.

If you believe the best way to ensure quality information flow about the nation's issues is through lies, manipulations, insinuations, and insults you are missing the point. You might actually go find out what it is that you're arguing for or against. You might check your numbers. And above all, you might recall that "I know you are, but what am I?" is the fallback tactic of seven year olds.

And if you believe that signing petitions and then spamming same to your friends and family serves any purpose but to offer dubious recommendations from the average person and line the pockets of the party circulating the petition, then you are delusional, and should probably just go lie down. 

Now. For the love of all that's holy: take at least thirty seconds to sit and seriously consider whether or not you know what a given social media post means, and whether or not you can actually endorse it. If you can make it through that, then click share.

Or you could just mindlessly share everything you find politically amusing. Because there's nothing funnier than watching the lot of you express the opinions that have been force fed to you, and thinking yourself smart for holding them.

Astronomy, Monogamy, Polyamory: Relating Relationships

Well, I'm not sure about my readers on my college's blog page, but my recent blog on polyamory was well received here. Which, while I'm pleased to see, causes a tiny problem.

I wrote the closing of that blog in a bit of a hurry, as I was late for class. Reading back over it, it seems to make the case (despite my intentions otherwise) that I believe monogamy to be flawed, or wrong in some way. It does state that I do not feel that way, but I have no doubt those that don't know me well might have mistaken a hurriedly typed disclaimer for sarcasm.

And not two days later, I came across a blog on another site that was very much a scream of rage about the way poly individuals look down on monogamous individuals.

Now I stand by what I said in my earlier post, but I feel it could use a bit of expansion:

Monogamy and polyamory are not different. There. Coffee, anyone?

What? Oh, more expansion. Right, sorry.

As ridiculous as it seems, there really is very little practical difference between the two. My concern, badly expressed earlier, is when individuals who might want or need poly in some form are in mono relationships because they've been taught that poly is wrong.

But I have an equal concern when individuals who are or want monogamy try to be or have poly because they feel pressured to seem evolved.

I know, for anyone out there that's just tuning in to the madhouse that is my life, that seems ridiculous. After all, multiple relationships are wrong! Society hates them! No-one would dare to feel so proud of their multiple relationships as to make others feel un-evolved!

Well, in my world it can happen. The various alternative communities that aggregate to make my world have a lot of poly people in the mix, and poly can seem to be more "normal" in my world than monogamy at times.

Having reduced my opening statement to the relative clarity of lead soup, I will now explain why I believe there's no difference: every single relationship ever has one thing in common. 

It's a relationship. 

"Yes, thank you Captain Obvious," someone just said. 

Let's break that down for a moment, though. We sling the word around so fast these days, it's easy to forget what it means. 

It's the act or choice or fact of relating to another person in some way. It's the word that means the dozens of subtle connections that form between two people, two planets, two molecules, two galaxies, two electrons. It's any effect on a person caused by another person. In a very real way, everyone who's ever had any effect on your existence has had some small relationship to you.

But there's the key: to you. Not with you. To have a relationship with something, both objects have to be involved. For example, the sun may have a relationship to us, but we're not exactly big on its list of concerns.

Back to some semblance of a point, though. Monogamy and polyamory aren't two sides of a coin; poly isn't the advanced class on mono; mono isn't the spiritual leap from poly; "insert claim of definition about the differences between mono and poly here," then know you're almost certainly wrong.

It's a relationship. To give an idea of why there's no difference, let's look at a type of relationship that can bear strikingly similar properties: gravity.

Now, off the top of my head, I can't think of any truly perfect two body gravitational systems. But that's only because (pay attention! disclaimer ahead!) everything connects to everything else. So, to clear any confusion, think of the universe as a room full of people. All those other things tugging on two body systems? Those are friends, co-workers, family. 

Settled, then. So, the Earth and the Moon are a good example of a two body system. They orbit each other, spinning delicately around a single point in space as they twirl around the Sun. The Earth holds the Moon steady and maintaining its stable orbit [citation needed]; the Moon's passage creates slight shifts in gravity that allow for tides, and weather. 

They affect one another in subtle ways, locked in a system of reaction and counteraction so complex it took hundreds of years to get to the point of understanding it enough to predict it. And we still don't know precisely how the force that allows for it works! Sounds like love, no?

On the other hand, let's look at Jupiter. Oh, Jupiter. That planet has a freaking harem of moons. Lots and lots of little heavenly bodies spinning and dancing around and about each other, responding to their closest dance partner and to the planet's gravity. And Jupiter is affected by the little planetoids and planetesimals in turn, brewing up the huge clouds and storms and auroras that coruscate around and over its surface all the time.

"Whoa, whoa," I hear someone saying. "Time out. That sounds a heckuva lot more complex that the Moon and Earth. And way different!"

Nope. See, that right there is the fun bit. The only practical difference between the orbits of Earth and its Moon, and the orbits of Jupiter and its dozens of moons, is that it's harder for an outside observer to grasp the latter!

That's all! The difference is not internal complexity, but observer complexity. The observer sees something they don't understand, or can't make good assumptions about, and poof, we have what appears to be a highly complex system. And there are two body systems (binary stars come to mind; comets and suns, also) that are wildly complex, dancing in variances and elliptic that make Jupiter's little kingdom seem tame! 

But within a system, everything works. Objects and people find their balances and come to a state of equilibrium; or they don't, and spin away to find somewhere else to be, or sometimes slingshot off into the depths to find somewhere far, far away to be. 

Sometimes rogues spiral through working systems and unbalance them; sometimes the systems capture and tame the rogues. Sometimes the rogues whirl through and the system settles down behind it without much of a fuss.

A relationship works or it doesn't. The people involved work at it or they don't. If it works better with two people, or five people, or fifteen people, or one guy/girl and a stack of magazines (don't hate, I know a few) it's still a relationship in some form. At the end of the day, a successful relationship is people affecting people in a way that makes them happy. And regardless of what an outside observer sees or understands, if it works, it works, and that's all that matters.

So, the next time y'all poly's out there look at a mono and sigh for the lack of evolution, remember: two people is just as complex and subtle as five. It's just easier for the outside observer to make assumptions about where the pieces fit.

And the next time y'all mono's feel put upon by poly's, remember: it ain't Relationships 201 you're looking at. It's just a relationship that has a few more connections involved.

This has been my clarification for the day. Now go forth and orbit, swiftly and all over the place!

Paean to Polyamory

As a general rule, I write social commentary about the things that annoy me. And I look upon it, and it is good. But it has recently been brought to my attention (by my mother) that I’m becoming too cynical. I don’t think there is such a thing as too cynical, but eh, mothers. So in the grand tradition of kids attempting to prove parents wrong, today’s blog is brought to you by kittens and unicorns and rainbows and whatever other crap makes you smile.

What makes me happy then? A number of things. While I do bleed cynicism and wield keyboards as though I believe they fire photon torpedoes, I’m not an unhappy person. I like small, cute things. Puppies and what not. Hedgehogs, for a preference. I think the fact that one of the most adorable animals in existence is covered in razor spines says something about the universe that amuses me.

But I’m rambling. Carrying on. What makes me happy, then, is people. Not all people, mind, since I loathe 99% of the human race. Before you judge, please remember that this leaves me 69,737,384 (give or take a couple hundred thousand) people to potentially like or love. I think that’s more than freakin’ enough, ok? Where was I?

Right, people. And there’s a bit of a rub. As strange as it might sound, I’m rather fond of being fond of people. See, I’m not kidding when I say I loathe the vast majority of the human race. But here’s the kicker: in a strange twist it turns out that, on some level or another, I can love lots and lots of people.

“So what? Parents do that all the time.”

Yep. But I meant romantically. The word for this is polyamory, which is a horrible thing. “Poly” is a Greek root word, and “amory” is Latinate. It should be “polyphilia” or “multiamory” damnit. But I digress.

I have a husband. We’ve been together for four years. I love that man so hard and hot, I could and would burn the world down if I thought it’d make him happy (I don’t own firearms for a reason, folks.) He’s my everything, my world, and he’s kept me upright and sane (for certain values of sane) through more crap than I can think to mention. He’s sweet and funny, with a sense of humor that whips back and forth between “d’awwwww” and “HIT THE DECK!”

He’s a teddy bear with a paintball grenade. He won’t hurt you much, but you will damn well be covered in it. And it will be funny.

We’ve had one boyfriend (who didn’t work out) and we’re dating another guy now. The new guy is this cute little boy that was new and shiny when we got hold of him. We’ve been working double time to get him firmly patinated, and to our delight, the shiny won’t rub off. As much as we corrupt the guy, he’s still playful, sweet, and speaks in lolcat, macro, and Net memes. I know that sounds weird, but you haven’t really lived until you’ve heard someone speak an entire paragraph of words in the “ERMAGERD” dialect.  And there’s yet another guy in the wings who’s looking interesting, and we’re considering trying for a quad.

And that’s just the people I do, or might, share a pillow with. There’s quite a few more than that. There’s a tiny, catlike woman called tiger who greatly enjoys torturing me (not that I complain) that I would love to put in my pocket and keep forever. Her guy is Chewy, this awesome Army armor division vet that walks, talks, and approaches everything like he has his tank in his pocket should you piss him off. He’s sexy, trust me.

They have a poly family. One of the women is this fantastic smart-aleck called Monkey (it makes sense in context) who always has a spot perfect comment, and has the driest, most deadpan delivery. When I first met her, I thought she was being funny on accident until the first time she cracked a smile in the middle of a particularly ridiculous line of thought.

The other girl doesn’t have a nickname I can use here (yet), but knows who she is. She’s a brat, a little kid that has to pretend to be a grown-up most of the time, and then suddenly smiles like the devil’s inside her and all hell breaks loose for a few seconds. When it’s done, she’s smiling like butter wouldn’t melt, and the pile of bodies is a mile high. Needless to say, she’s adorable.

There’s a lesbian couple in Cali my husband and I used to live with. There’s no romance, but we call them family, and there is love there. One of them, Kitteh (yes, it’s lolcat; deal with it) is a Hello Kitty fanatic with a slightly prurient, giggly sense of humor and a tendency to be suddenly and randomly girly. The other half, Kryket, is another deadpan snarker whose favorite activity is to find the grammar errors in speech that change the meaning of what is said...and then go off and running with the alternate meaning. It’s incredibly amusing to watch happen to other people.

And then there’s the people we live with. One of them, Gem, I call sister. She’s a tiny Irish woman, with all the temper, stubbornness, and humor that implies. Her kids, one of whom (as I’ve previously mentioned) is dating my brother. And then Creed, who is currently with Gem, and is both nearly cripplingly intelligent, and a major, major n—nope, need another major—nerd. Which makes me happy, as I am also a (major)3 nerd.

This list could go on. But I think I’ve made my point. Oh, and for the record, I am gay.
Yes that’s more than a few women on that there list; I simply fail to see why not wanting to sleep with someone prevents romantic love. And to clarify, yes, I find them attractive. I’m just not interested in getting busy.

Point, yes. I have one, and will get to it.

Everywhere I look, the society I live in is confining love, beauty, romance, attraction. If I hadn’t fallen in with wonderful people I might be dead or, more likely, an alcoholic now. Because the world around me isn’t exactly understanding of a gay boy with a husband, a boyfriend, another potential boyfriend, and romantic attraction to both men and women but only physical attraction to men.

Why not? I mean seriously, I love lots of people. I can be in love with more than one person. I can be open to romance with just about anyone. And, to tie this all back to the top, the reason I end up loathing so much of the human race is that there are people that hate me...for loving others.

Hey look, there was a cliche! Right up there!

Quick note: monogamy is fabulous. It works for lots of people. But when it’s the option assumed because it’s simultaneously assumed that it’s the only option, we have problems. In all seriousness: all you poor mundane folk out there that chose to live in a box because “hey, look! A box!”—

I’m sad for you. I’ll be over here with my freakin’ party van of people to love, who also love me, while you keep right on searching for that one soul that makes you happy because society, or your parents, or your faith has told you that you are broken if you need or want more than one.

There. Social commentary, with rainbows and kittens and ponies and whatnot. Now smile, damnit. And go find someone to love.

Why Paul Ryan Scares Me: A Brief Lesson in Civics

Well, I’ve avoided politics in my blogs for as long as humanly possible. I have this burning hatred of the political game, politicians who play it, and the whole rigged system in general. And I’d rather write a social blog.

But, to my intense annoyance, there is currently a political clusterschtup taking the nation by firestorm. And I would be ashamed to call myself an opinionated bastard if I didn’t weigh in at least briefly. 

The situation to date: Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) got mouthy on a radio show a few days back, and made the following statement:   

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Cue firestorm. Which is great, Akin should absolutely be roasted by every pundit and sane human being for this. As has also been extensively covered, Akin has sponsored, authored, or lobbied for a number of bills that attempt to limit, deny or criminalize birth control and abortion options in most cases. 

One of those bills, HR 3, contained the language “forcible rape” in an attempt to create legal distinctions between “types” of rape, for the purpose of denying abortion to women whose rape wasn’t “forcible.”

No, I have no idea what world this man is living in. But let’s get to the end of this real fast.  Co-authoring and sponsoring that bill specifically, and a few others, was a man named Paul Ryan. Who is currently running for Vice-President. Hence, an even larger firestorm heading down the pipe.

To the heart of the problem. Civics 101, Lite: the President is the head of the US Executive branch. His (or her) job is to implement and enforce the laws Congress creates, to be in charge of the military, and to be the frontman (or woman) for Congress. Because trying to have a foreign dignitary meet with the entire Congress or sign a treaty with Congress, while hilarious, would be a monkey pile waiting to happen.

Now, go back and look at the “implement and enforce” bit. Congress makes laws. Not the president. Congress. They’re the ones in charge of pretty much everything to do with policies and laws. So Congress, not the president, gets to decide what is and is not legal on a Federal scale. (With help and wrist slapping provided by the Supreme Court. And the President can say no under most circumstances. And needs to sign things—look, I’m keeping this simple, ok?) 

Half the VP’s job is to be the person in charge of the Senate. No, seriously. The job is usually done by the longest serving US Senator, but it’s constitutionally one of the VP’s jobs. Long explanation short, the Senate is the upper house, the one things go through right before the President gets them. The veep doesn’t debate, doesn’t really do much of anything in the Senate. 

But he has the deciding vote in any tie. Take a second to think that through. In any debate that is so charged and controversial as to result in a tie, Paul Ryan would have the power to decide which way the vote goes.

And it gets better! The other half of a VP’s job is to step in for the Pres if he or she can’t fulfill his or her duties. So, should Romney-Ryan get elected, if something happens to Romney we’ll have Akin’s ideological twin sitting in the White House.

I’ll hit my thesis here, then. I’ve not had enough of a look at Romney to make a call there. And while I could point to a few things Obama has done that annoy me (alright, more than a few) we’re not sinking horribly, he’s kept more than a few of his campaign promises to the best of his ability and...well, he hasn’t sucked horribly.

Barring new information, I was essentially undecided until Romney picked a running mate. And this is the point, which I cannot emphasize strongly enough:

Ryan has a record of voting as a right wing extremist. Ryan has authored bills and documents indicating an ideology consistent with the stereotype of right wing extremism. While it is possible that he’s simply catering to some strange voter base, the evidence indicates that this man is absolutely divorced from anything resembling modern reality for women’s rights.

So this Fall I will not be voting for anyone. I will not be basing my decision (as I would have hoped) on a rational look at voting records, issues, statements and contradictions. I will be voting to keep a crackpot from getting within arm’s reach of the big chair, and away from power of decision in the Senate.

Yay for ‘effing America. 

Race to the Degree

Yay, college. Today marks the first day of my last semester on what will probably prove to be a largely useless degree. I am not, however, bitter. Why, one might ask, would a person not be bitter about a degree that has minimal job prospects and is mostly good for getting the next college to accept credits without a fight? Well, the second one is a fairly good reason. Transferable credits are nothing to sneeze at.  But mostly, it’s the growing gap in higher education.

Yes, for those out there keeping score, I do have issues with the whole education system! Horrific missteps in the gaining of knowledge isn’t only for kids anymore! Doesn’t it give you warm fuzzies?

Here’s the problem in a nutshell. In order to work in any given field, more and more time needs to be invested in education before starting. I’m both cursed and lucky, in that a monkey could do my job. Okay, that’s exaggeration, but not by much. While a degree helps in my field, it is possible to just get started with an AP style handbook and natural aptitude. But my field is in the “evolve or die” phase, and so far it’s still clinging to the trees and complaining about how far down that ground is, and who wants to walk upright anyway?

There are, however, a great many fields that need a degree to get started. And for many of them, a Bachelors is today, what an Associates used to be. That is, it’s the degree you have to get before you can get the degree that actually qualifies you to work in your field.

Ok, a couple more years. So what? Kids are taking time off before college now, and living at home until thirty. There’s time, right?

Nope. College is getting more expensive every year, in every way. Tuition goes up to match raises in taxes, cost of living, cost of services. Text books have been expensive since dot, but are getting more so as publishers become more specialized and the various fields become unbreakable monopolies.

Student loans are going up to match the rising tuition costs. And since the loan companies have students over a barrel with no lube in sight, all students can do is shop around and hope the government can help.

Ah, the government! I have not a single thing against government aid. I don’t approve of abusing it, mind you, but I have nothing against its existence and use. Unfortunately, students who don’t have gobs of money to pay for school themselves but aren’t actually poor can’t touch that. A friend of mine has a dad who makes quite good money. Her mother, however, has the vicious version of diabetes, Type 1, and so when her parents income is adjusted for cost of living, there’s barely enough to get them through, much less help their daughter through school.

But since FAFSA doesn’t adjust for cost of living (surprise) there’s no help. Which leaves those nasty, nasty loans.

Scholarships! Grants! Well, yes. But they’re difficult to find. And do you have any idea what it’s like to apply for $16-24,000 worth of scholarships and grants? The applications process alone is a full time job, 8 hours a day for a minimum of a week for the gamblers, and perpetuity for the conscientious, with no guarantee that it will pay off. And once on a scholarship, it’s a never-ending adventure to meet the requirements.

Now imagine having five scholarships to fulfill. Oh, and still keeping up with classes.  

And with all of that said: nothing in highschool prepares a student for college. So even making it in and getting the money don’t mean that it will be possible to make it through.

And finally, on top of all that: the middle class is vanishing under economic strain. The comfortable jobs that college earned a decade or so ago are rapidly becoming either so highly paid as to boost a person out of the middle class, or so common as to drop below it. Or are staying stable, while cost of living goes up.

Why does this matter? Debt levels all. Debt from earning those degrees eliminates their starting advantage, and gives non-graduate workers time to catch up. So it’s actually possible, with care and practice, to live decently on income earned as a manager in a fast food restaurant, or (as my husband does, making excellent money) working in tech support. Or a grocery store. Or, quite frankly, and one of the hundreds of non-outsourceable local service jobs that have room for promotion, or will hire for better paying positions based on experience. Experience that, unlike college, actually pays the bills to earn. And that living can, as experience accumulates, become just as comfortable.

So, to recap: getting a useful degree takes longer; college is getting more expensive in every aspect; loans blow chunks, grants and scholarships are attainable, but difficult to find and wield properly; and the time spent versus debt accumulated to earn a useful degree is closing in on the point of being a losing situation for most degree holders.

So, why am I not bitter about my nearly useless degree? Because I’m lucky. I got my degree entirely on the government's dime because I have seven siblings. I got it at a community college that actively gives a crap about affordability, and so didn’t have to pull loans to do it.

And I’m lucky because I’m ahead of the tide. Very soon, I’ll have to start pulling down loans and hunting scholarships. But if my reading is right, I’ll clear the hurdle just ahead of the gap, and make it out of this with a useful degree before the debt-to-income ratio shuts me out.

Now: on my mark, get set...

Education Blues

Of all the things my mother did for us kids, I have to admit that homeschooling us was one of her braver and more brilliant moves. Not because I think homeschoolers are the future gods of mankind, as my mother does (hint: she’s biased;) but because the current system of public education is downright awful.

Children aren’t passing on their own merits, both because it would hurt their “self-esteem” and the schools funding. I know a couple kids that graduated to high school without being able to read past a first-grade level. And not because of learning disabilities, but because they hadn’t been forced to learn how.

A full quarter of the American population never finished high school. Think about that for a moment. That’s not some little number, that’s a huge friggin’ chunk of people. And the hilarious thing? Whenever standards are raised, there’s an uproar. There was a push here in Oklahoma to require kids graduating high school to take a standardized exam similar to the GED in order to receive a diploma. Instant screaming from parents, teachers, and the kids themselves. Why?

Because all and sundry were afraid the kids wouldn’t pass and get their diploma. No seriously, that was the stated reason.

And even for the kids whom the public school system isn’t a total failure, there’s major skills left untaught. Classes on money management are rare enough to make the news. Civics is generally a class about “this is the structure of the US/State/City government.” Little to nothing goes into teaching the kids about politics, how to study potential candidates, what their rights are and how to exercise them.

The arts are experiencing a bit of a resurgence, but are still the red-headed step-kids of the school system. After all, who cares? No-one broadcasts school concerts on primetime local channels. Gallery showing of high school art is publicized mostly within the school population itself, and generally gets the vibe of “look what little Billy/Suzy made in class.”

A kid can skate by, slouching through the system with little to no consequence, and be released into the world with whatever life skills he or she can gain from peers. And a kid can’t make it through even that long, dropping out is on the table.

Kids that can move or throw or tackle get prime treatment. Help with classes, tutoring, even occasional “fudging” in some cases, to help the kid stay on the team. So no incentive to learn, there.

The kids who can’t play, or aren’t good at playing, are dumped in the “not sporty” box, bullied or becoming bullies, with the programs that might help them being cut. And even if the programs do exist, the stigma of “not being good at sports” makes participation in those programs just another tool in the bully’s arsenal. Some of these kids will learn out of self-defense, true enough. But how many more will just decide there’s no point? They’re not jocks, so no-one cares, right? No incentive to learn.

As a college student, I sat next to and worked with fellow students who can’t spell or write clearly. Students who believe that tossing a bunch of words on paper in some semblance of order qualifies as a paper.

I’ve heard students talking about every subject under the sun, and I can almost always spot the ones that skated through school. They’re the ones that can’t form sentences to save their lives; who express illogical opinions with the clear and ringing tone of dogmatic truth, without the ability to defend their opinion.

So what’s up with all this? Why is the US education system flushing itself?

Well, a few reasons present themselves. First is that there really is no money in K-12 education. The funding blows, the pay blows, the job blows. And these savings are passed on to the taxpayers in the form of lower costs and children that are essentially babysat for 12 years, with an option to learn now and again. On top of which, the only way for the system to get more money is to show high passing rates. So kids that haven’t paid attention, or who’ve been overlooked by the system will just keep getting passed up the line until they flunk horribly, drop out, get a decent teacher...or graduate.

Second, the world is growing ever more complex. Higher and higher level material is being pushed to younger and younger kids, without the support network to help them. New methods of teaching kids are being discovered, but are having trouble gaining a foothold in the face of decades of the lecture/activity/homework style. Out of all the students I’ve met? I’m one of four I know of that actually works well for.  

Third, and perhaps most depressing, is the kids are left uneducated for their own good. If it’s a choice between fighting a child to get them to learn, and simply punishing behavior, why fight? Repeated sanctions have a great track record in any field, no? I mean, it works on whole countries when the UN does it. Wow, that was hard to type with a straight face.

Solutions, then: well, there’s a couple. But I doubt I’ll see them in my lifetime.

More funding, properly allocated. Put towards more teachers, better programs, academic studies to find better ways of educating kids. Where would this mystery finding come from? Well, perhaps standing down military spending, congressional raises, and a minor tax hike would be a good start. And if you feel the need to cuss about a tax hike to educate kids, I hope you choke on your own rhetoric.
Better educational incentives. What, you thought learning something was enough to get kids to listen to someone that controls their lives for 6-8 hours a day? Nope. Give them a reason. Reward good academic skills. Kids compete like they breathe, and using their self-esteem as a reason not to reward those who succeed and spur those who don’t care is just plain stupid.

Give the teachers a little more power to handle stuff. These are people who’ve been through a minimum of 4 years of college, exhaustive exams, have been licensed, certified, and fought to get to a point where they can educate a kid. And no-one trusts them to stand a kid in a corner?

I mean, seriously, you’d trust a paramedic to get your kid to a hospital and keep ‘em breathing, a policeman to protect your kid from bodily harm, and a bus driver to take them however many miles back and forth each day to school. But you won’t trust a teacher to know when a kid needs some corner time?

What are the chances of any of this happening? Not likely. Cause seriously, as long as the football’s on, the world keeps turning, and at least a few make it out of the system alive and with a decent start at an education — well, it’s the next generation’s problem, right?

Yep. Just like the education system’s problems when you were growing up were supposed to be yours to fix.