Obtaining vs. Maintaining Higher Education

In a short-term sense, higher education is now more accessible than it ever has been before with the increasing accessibility of financial aid and opportunities to attend community colleges before transferring to more expensive and often more academically rigorous four-year schools.  But in a long-term sense, higher education may be becoming less accessible, because students’ loans and grants aren’t always enough to reasonably assist them in covering the rising tuition and supply costs they face.  Also, it often takes years to pay back student loans once one graduates and begins working full time.  A lot of people just don’t think that getting a higher education is worth it if they need to go this deeply into the financial hole to do so, especially in our present economy where many college graduates have a difficult time finding employment.  It seems like today, a higher education is more accessible to obtain but less accessible to maintain.

Years ago, the students who had a passion for learning were the ones who attended college (yes, they usually came from families of good means, but this also occurred during a time when achieving a higher education post- high school wasn’t expected of most.)  However, during this time, people could find decent, well-paying jobs that only required them to have a high school diploma.  But, we’ve gone through some drastic societal changes since then, and this is no longer the case.  But I’m starting to digress…    

Even there are many opportunities to enter into an institution of higher learning; many find themselves unable to complete their higher education, mostly either for monetary reasons or because they were unprepared to work at the level expected.  This is a big problem in our society where the majority of students feel as though they are expected to, or should go to college in order to find a job with a salary they can reasonably live and raise a family on.  I know that money is still a glaring issue, and there aren’t any cure-all solutions that I can think of to suggest.  However, to help fix this, our high schools need to challenge students more and the students need to rise to the challenge; maybe this would help to better prepare students to achieve long-term success in a higher education setting.  The primary point I wanted to make is even though we have ways of making a higher education more obtainable to students, we should be more concerned with making it more maintainable, and the best and fairest way I can think of to do this is by offering students the best education possible at the primary and secondary levels with the hope that they strive to succeed at these levels which prepare them for a future in higher education.

Different Degrees

Higher education used to be something that was expected of you, if you wanted to do anything meaningful in life and be a contributing member of society.  But I think that mindset has changed somewhat recently - I believe that fewer people are rushing to attend college straight out of high school, based on several different factors.

First, as previously stated, there's the money issue.  The basic truth at the core of higher education is that college is expensive as hell.  Most people can't simply say "I want to go to college", and then do so, without some sort of preparations.  Over the last several decade, there's been a notable increase in the number of people over the age of 21 who are enrolling in college.  I almost feel like it's become "normal" for people to work for a bit after graduating high school, in order to save up enough money so as to be able to (almost) afford college.

Next, there's the question of the necessity of a college degree for some people.  I'm going to use myself as an example for this, because I think I make a pretty damn good example.  I started working in retail immediately after I graduated high school, and that's about all I did for the next ten years.  I did start attending college briefly in 2006, but I didn't continue with it after I got a promotion at work.  I only recently stepped down from my position and resumed taking classes because I've grown tired of doing what I've been doing for the last ten years.  Had I wanted to, I'm sure I could have (fairly easily) continued to climb the corporate ladder of GameStop, and I honestly don't doubt that I could have been a district manager within the next year or so.  The notable thing about this is how far I've gotten (and how far I could've gone) without any sort of degree or anything.  For some fields, a degree of some kind is almost necessary - but if you're talented in what you do (and you enjoy doing it), it's not always a necessity.  I question, sometimes, why certain people are attending college - not because of any deficiencies on their part, or anything of the sort, but because they don't seem to need to do so.

Finally, my take on the environment of various places - truthfully, I don't see any change whatsoever in the environment of... well, anywhere.  I've been in college classes that include high school students, as well as older people.  Hell, when I took my ballroom dancing class, most of the "students" were over 30 years old.  It didn't really change anything.  People were there to learn, and that was all that I really cared about.  It was a nice change from high school, when people were there just because they had to be.

Education for all!

As I may have mentioned before, my plan for my life is to become a teacher. I'm a firm believer in the idea that everyone has the capacity to try and at least somewhat succeed in school, and that regardless of career path, everyone should strive to be a life-long learner. That being said, my opinions on this week's topic may seem a bit predictable.

As Laura mentioned, Germany allows for (more or less) higher education paid for by the government/taxes. I think this is one of the best ideas that anyone has ever had. The biggest issue standing between people that want to contribute to society through some means that requires an education is the fact that most people can't afford to take four years to just take classes and focus on them. Most people that go to college in the US have to either a) get their financially well-off parents to foot the bill, b) take out a metric fuckton of student loans that they will likely never be able to fully pay off, c) somehow end up with scholarships to pay for everything, or d) work the entire time they're in school in a way that'll drastically slow down the pace that they can progress at.

Honestly, the fact that society expects everybody to have a degree before they can work any kind of job is more than a bit of a problem. But let's imagine for a second that we could eliminate that issue and provide government-paid higher education. The people that don't need to go on with their education to get into the field that they want to get into wouldn't bother with it if they didn't feel like it was necessary. Suddenly, that massive clog in the system is gone, and the people left at colleges are the people that really want to be there.

I think it would do our country a lot of good to allow people to continue their education without it being a financial concern. Just because it isn't necessary for their job, that doesn't mean that it can't be a contributing factor to being a well-rounded person. I might be veering into territory that's much too idealistic, but as everyone here knows, getting a college education is about more than career training. It's about being better prepared to interact with the real world. It's about absorbing as much new information as you can. It's about exposing yourself to different ideas that make you question the way you look at the world and really consider whether or not your way of thinking is right.

And isn't that what we all really want our society to be like?

Maybe too Accessible?

Since most of us contributing to this blog are students, it should not be surprising that the topic of education comes up again and again, because it is a topic we are deeply familiar. This week then, we're tackling the accessibility of higher education. I think this goes hand in hand with our earlier topic about education alternatives, because the accessibility affects how or why we might seek alternatives.

In my mind college is more accessible now than ever, in part because it feels like society has it as practically a requirement for succeeding in this world. And of course the easy nature in which one can acquire student loans, which can leave a person in debt for years after they graduate. And with the number of community colleges, online universities catering to the people who couldn't normally complete college, and schools worrying about funds and pushing to accept more students, it is hard for someone not to find a college that will accept them.

Now, its nice that anyway could theoretically go to college, but I do not think the increased accessibility is a good thing. It first and foremost puts a pressure on people to have to go to college, when (as I've stated before) I do not that that should be the case for all career paths. It puts people into more debt, makes them spend more money than they need to be trained in that field. And if everyone is going to college, and so many people are amassing student debt, I do see a crisis in our future for all those people that have trouble paying their student loans. After all, there was (I can't remember if there still is) a debate by Congress on whether or not to let the interest rates on student loans increase. Well, it felt less like a debate and more like a struggle for each side to get what they want, including the same interest rates.

College has become the norm. College has become the future everyone has seen themselves having, and I think in some part because everyone is going to college, a college degree isn't "worth" as much anyway. You have to do more to stand out and get that job than just a diploma. Part of it is of course the recession, but to some degree the ability of anyone to get a degree dilutes the value of all.

Of course, I'm not saying we shouldn't let people get a college education. The American Dream lives on in the college education. But this is of course when you start to enter the "alternatives" debate and that would be an entirely different post. Basically I think college is too expensive and too accessible, though of course making it less accessible would probably make it more expensive, so I do not think there's any chance of my perceived issue being solved in the near future.

Though, I do not think the accessibility of higher education is affecting the quality. We still (as the United States) have some of the highest ranked universities in the world, and still create new technologies and come up with new ideas. (its really the k - 12 education system that I am more worried about...)

And I suppose that sums up my opinions on the subject for this week. Yeah.

Money, Money, Money...

Okay, so to preface my post, I would like to note that I don't know much about the actual costs of education, higher or otherwise.  Sure, I am in college, but my dad pays for most of it and likes to keep the finances to himself.  So, I'm going to base this post on what I think is happening, and if any of it is fundamentally incorrect, please let me know.

So, I think that higher education has become much more difficult to get into then in past decades, based on what I have been told.  There are now test scores and extracurricular activities that determine whether the college will let you in, instead of just grades.  There are also more people finishing high school and competing for a spot at a college, because it is expected of them and will help them get a better job.  Our society today believes that you have to have a college degree to do well, so more people are being coerced into getting one, which also makes the rush to get jobs significantly harder to people without a college degree.  So, it's a vicious cycle that plays over and over again.

Now, paying for higher education is what most people who elect to go to college are worried about.  The tuition tends to be expensive, and it can be very difficult to pay the university that much money.  That is where financial aid and student loans come in, especially if someone is paying for their own college without the help of parents.  Now, financial aid seems to work well for students whose parents don't make much money, but what about if the parents make a lot of money but refuse to help?  Then student loans have to be taken out, which probably requires a lot of bothersome things I don't know about.  The money aspect of college is probably a factor that deters people from going and getting a college degree, as well, although I don't know that for certain.

Colleges here in the United States also have different policies than elsewhere.  I heard somewhere that Germany (I think) has free college options, and the only reason I can think of that this would be the case is that if you want to go to college then hopefully you will make something of yourself and help the society through your job.  This may not be true, but It makes sense to me.  However, I don't know if it could actually work like that, because then couldn't people get a college degree and then do absolutely nothing with it?  If people have to pay for their education they are more likely to appreciate it and do something productive with their lives.

Well, I think that just about wraps up my post.  I hope you enjoyed it, and I can'r wait to read other's opinions throughout the week.

Week of 8/26 - Accessibility of Higher Education in the U.S.

Hi everyone! This week we'll be discussing the accessibility of higher education in the United States.  In some ways, higher education in the U.S. has become more accessible, in that there are more opportunities for financial aid; but in other ways, higher education is less accessible that ever before, because the cost of a higher education is higher than ever before and continues to rise.  Money is just one factor that we'll be discussing this week that plays into the accessibility of higher education.  One the main questions is: How accessible is higher education, and what factors play into its accessibility?  How do people think the accessibility of higher education affects the environment in colleges and universities, the workplace, and our society in general.  It'll be interesting to see everyone's experiences of and viewpoints on this topic.  Tomorrow we'll be hearing from Laura and I'll be back on Friday to wrap up this week's topic.  

It's not real. ... Or is it?

I'm fairly certain that most people out there have seen or heard of one of the big political stories going on at the moment, but just to cover all possibilities, here's the story: (clicky-clicky).

Todd Akin, a US Representative from Missouri, made several statements regarding pregnancy rates from rape.  Among his comments were "... It's really rare", and "If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down".  This outraged me the first time I read about it, and it continues to do so.  "Legitimate" rape?  I'm sorry, I didn't know there was any other kind of rape.  Rape, by its very definition, is an act that is forced upon someone.  I don't know what he was thinking when he said that.  He's gone on to claim that he "misspoke", but as far as I know, he hasn't offered any explanation beyond that.  It seems pretty clear to me that if he misspoke, there should be immediate clarification.  The picture that I'm getting isn't one of clarification - it's of damage control.  A lot of people are calling for him to drop out of the Senate seat race that he's (currently) a part of, but he doesn't seem to consider that a possibility.

So, with the backstory out of the way, -should- he be forced to drop out of the Senate race?  My opinion is no.  Did he make a completely stupid, asinine comment?  Absolutely.  Should he be publicly "raked over the coals", as it were, in order to even START making amends for that?  Absolutely.  Does it in any way make him ineligible for holding a Senate seat?  Not in the slightest.  Really, all it does is put the voters into a different situation.  Assume that you're steadfastly Republican (which Mr. Akin is).  Is your political affiliation strong enough to push you to vote for him anyway, even after that kind of comment?  Or would you be displeased enough by it to change your mind, either voting for the Democrat, another candidate, or not at all?  Let's not forget, it wasn't too long ago that we had a US President in office who misspoke regularly.  I've seen 366-page calendars of "Bushisms" more than I'd ever cared to.  Former President Bush's qualifications (or lack thereof) to run the country are a different topic, though.

Essentially, I think that if Rep. Akin chooses to remain in the Senate race, then more power to him.  The final decision lies, as it always has, in the hands of the voters.  If the public is as outraged as they say, then their votes will speak for themselves.

I doubt this post saved any lives, and I apologize for that.  In an attempt to remedy that, I'll share this nugget of wisdom: studies have shown that 10 out of 10 people who drink water die.  Take from that what you will.

'Till next time, everyone.

Could Not Reading This Post Cause Cancer?

Probably not. As long as providing news has been a way for people to make money, the desire for increasingly sensational stories that'll attract attention has led to the proliferation of ridiculous claims and massive misinterpretation of relatively mundane facts. Case in point: an article that claims that eating the yolk of an egg is as dangerous as smoking.

This article was presented on the first day of my Statistics class this semester as an example of how facts can be skewed to an absurd degree by the media for the sake of creating a story from nothing. The original research that this article is based on concluded that people at risk of heart disease should probably avoid egg yolks. This was violently twisted by the author of this article to mean, "EGG YOLK WILL CAUSE CORONARY HEART DISEASE. BEWARE."

This highlights a major problem with our society: people will assume that a source is reliable just because of support from a major news outlet, especially if its a topic that they're not personally educated on. That being said, while it's your responsibility as an individual to look into the information that you're taking in, the people putting it out these kinds of articles should be held accountable as well. Providing people with this kind of misleading trash and calling it news is morally reprehensible, and it's rather depressing that people still think this is okay to do.

This has really been more of a commentary on the media at large than a specific current event, but I hope that it encourages a more critical look at the world. Tomorrow, John'll be posting with news that could potentially save your life. Be sure not to miss it.

Music Across Languages

When setting out on this current events thing, I decided that I was going to try and find interesting, less seen articles that I thought were interesting enough to share. This week I've decided to share this CNN article about AfroCubism, which is a band of Malian and Cuban musicians. The blending of two musical cultures first drew my eye, but as they described how that the bands members do not all speak the same language, and how they work together to create their own language in music, that's what really made me enjoy this article.

Tioumani Diabate, who plays the kora and is the musician whom the article focuses on makes the comment that AfroCubism shows that music can bring people together. I am very much into the uniting power of music, and of how music is able to speak to the deepest parts of ourselves. I admit that I do not know much about nor really follow international music, so I had never heard about AfroCubism before and to now know about such a collaboration is really really cool.

Music is one of the things that makes us human, allows us to express ourselves, so I definitely see music as being important to our culture and to who we are, and can be used to help see those differences in culture. And the bringing of two cultures together to create one sound allows us to continue to close the gap in the extreme differences we see in one another.

So perhaps I got more out of the article than was initially there, and I am certainly interested in what kind of thoughts you have after reading it (and watching some of the videos) too.

Who Comes Up With This Stuff?

So I found an article from the Wall Street Journal about decoding books into DNA.  Basically, someone decided to take a digital copy of a book and translates those ones and zeros into pieces of DNA.  The article is much better at explaining how they did it then I am, since I still don't understand how things work once they're in binary, much less in DNA.  But, apparently the space of someone's thumb could hold the entire internet.

Now, this is a very cool idea.  However, apparently it takes several days to transcribe it, and much longer to re-form those strands into a book.  I don't understand how they can do this, since DNA is sooo tiny.  But, someone much smarter then me has figured it out, and so now they can put literary information onto blank strands of DNA.

The better question seems to me to be, Why?  Okay, so now you have a book on tens of thousands strands of DNA.  So, why did you do this in the first place?  Just because you could?  I think we are doing perfectly fine with printed books.  If you want to read books from a computer screen or Kindle, that's fine, although I probably won't join you.  But what on earth possessed someone to say, "Oh, I want to read my book from a DNA strand today?"

Yeah, I understand that we're supposed to be improving ourselves and our technology all the time.  I wouldn't mind keeping things going at a slower pace, but that's just me.  I was born in the wrong century.  This is just crazy, to think of reading something through some complicated process that gets it off the DNA and into print.  But, hey, I suppose nothing will ever be lost again.

So, another article to think about.  Enjoy.

Everyone gets a gold star!

Just so you all know, I’ve taken a very open interpretation of “current events” for my post this week.  I had an experience this past weekend that relates to a current social issue that I’ve wanted to write about, so here I go…

A few nights ago, my family and I went to a popular sporting event (I may be a little paranoid, but I don’t want to be too specific with the unnecessary details) and, as with most sporting events, the night began with the singing of our national anthem.  When the announcer introduced the singer, I noticed that he was really talking the guy up.  Apparently the singer was an American Idol finalist and had auditioned to sing back up for a famous pop musician (the word auditioned should have raised a red flag because anyone can technically audition for anything, but I wanted to be excited and I was hoping to hear someone good).  The stands were packed and I would guess that there were about 1,000 to 1,500 spectators there that night, and after that grand introduction, I got my hopes up and thought that we were really going to hear something special.  Well, we ended up hearing a rather unexpected version of our national anthem.  The guy started singing, and then he ended up changing keys after the first line (I can understand that this kind of thing can happen when you’re singing in a huge open space through a fuzzy sound system), but then he changed keys again and again and again.  The singer had a very pleasant voice and all, but by the end of the song, he had sung in just about every key known to music.  I couldn’t believe that I had just heard a person sing our national anthem that badly in front of so many people.  It was obvious that the singer had some vocal talent, but he needed practice.  More importantly, he needed someone close to him to tell him specifically what he was not doing well so he would have a fair chance to work on and eventually fix whatever it was.    

I think that this is a big issue in our society today.  Everyone gets a gold star whether they deserve one or not.  The labeling of “above average” has become the new “average” and “average” has become the new “below average.”  Anyone who was in the grandstand that night was shown a prime example of why this is problematic.  Just so we’re clear, I’m not trying to hate on the poor guy, because he definitely had a natural talent.  I know firsthand that singing for a large number of people through a fuzzy sound system is nerve wrenching, and he may have been nervous or just having an off night.  But for someone with his resume, I was surprised that no one close to him, whether it was a friend, family member, or vocal coach, had told him what parts of that song he needed to work on before performing it for an audience.  It seemed like everyone was so focused on his accomplishments and how naturally gifted he was that his talent was never really harnessed to its full potential.

I’m not saying that it’s everyone’s place to tell others what they need to fix and how they need to do it, because that’s unnecessarily rude and it rarely ends up being constructive or useful in any way.  What I’m saying is that accolades often replace encouragement, and they shouldn’t.  Everyone needs encouragement, especially when they have talent and, most importantly, drive.  Accolades, or praises for achievement, should be limited to when they are deserved.      

Week of 8/19 - Current Events

Hey, everyone.  This will be another week of postings about (semi-)current events happening around the world.  We had some interesting articles a couple of weeks ago, and I'll be interested to see what our contributors choose to share this week.

Pendleton will be up tomorrow, and I'll be back on Friday.
Enjoy the week, everyone.

And now for something completely different...

Hey everyone! So, as promised on Sunday, I'm back to post something exciting. Today, I'm gonna share something that should appeal to anyone reading that enjoys puzzles, logic, programming, and/or math.

Project Euler.

This website provides hundreds of challenging problems that require a basic understanding math and a thorough understanding of basic logic. Some basic programming skill is generally necessary to compute the solution, but seldom anything advanced or complex, but the real challenge is in determining the proper algorithm for finding the answer to a problem like "Add all the natural numbers below one thousand that are multiples of 3 or 5."

Personally, I find that messing around with this is a great way to relieve stress, and I think that anyone that's ever enjoyed any of the things I listed at the beginning would have a real shot at enjoying this too.

I Wish I Read More

I've had a lot of time to think this week, and the part of it that wasn't spent playing Kingdom Hearts: Birth By Sleep was largely devoted to trying to think of a handful of good books to blog about. This has been a rather difficult task, largely because I rarely take the time to read. It's terrible, and I'm planning to fix that in the coming months.

and it's a story that might bore you but you don't have to listen, she told me, because she always knew it was going to be like that, and it was, she thinks, her first year, or actually weekend, really a Friday, in September, at Camden...

In the entire time that I've been in college, I've only read one book purely for pleasure and not because it was required for school. That being said, the first book I'm going to discuss is The Rules of Attraction by Bret Easton Ellis. This book explores the not-so-romantic entanglements of a web of college students in the late 80s. The story is presented with chapters narrated by pretty much every named character, primarily focusing on Sean, a drug dealer with an "I don't give a shit" attitude toward life that's falling for Lauren, an art student pining after a boy she fell in love with that's off in Europe that also used to date Paul, a bisexual drama student that looks down on almost everyone around him that may or may not be in a relationship with... Sean. It may sound like the setup for a bad game of Fiasco, but the unusual rambling trains of thought and multiple unreliable narrators weave an interesting tale that somehow ends up conveying a pretty meaningful message. Don't watch the movie though. It's exactly as shitty as this description would have you think the book would be, and its only redeeming quality is Ian Somerhalder.

Moon. Glorious moon. Full, fat, reddish moon, the night as light as day, the moonlight flooding down across the land and bringing joy, joy, joy.

Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay is the first in a series of books that sparked the show on Showtime that you're probably more familiar with. The book follows Dexter Morgan, a blood spatter analyst for the Miami Police Department by day and a vigilante serial killer that hunts down killers that have gotten away with their crimes, as he tries to determine the identity of the Tamiami Butcher (or, for viewers of the show, the Ice Truck Killer). The writing isn't great, but it's a quick and worthwhile read. The second book in the series is as well, and is a lot less predictable for people that have seen the show, though I've heard terrible things about the third and beyond.

Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you'd expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn't hold with such nonsense.

Ahh, Harry Potter. As others have said this week, the world that J.K. Rowling has crafted with this series is so vast and memorable that it'd be hard not to find yourself in love with it. This blurb is less about encouraging reading that, and more about Pottermore. For anyone that lives under a rock, Pottermore is a site that was launched last July that contains a lot of fun flash games relating to the various books in the series, but much more importantly, it allows you to get a deeper look at the world that the series takes place in. The various sections are filled with detailed notes from J.K. Rowling about various aspects of the world that simply never found its way into the books. Plus, you can be sorted into the appropriate house and be assigned a wand. Who wouldn't get excited about that?

To whoever might find this, my name is Chris Lynch, and I'm pretty sure I'm dying. In fact, if you are reading this, then I'm probably already dead. Not that anyone will be around to read this... from what I've seen, I'd guess this is the end of everything.

This last recommendation is probably the least substantial on this list, but it's worth the entire half hour it'll take you to read it. Zombie Haiku by Ryan Mecum is pretty much exactly what it says on the tin. It tells the story of a poet that is going about his day to day life when he becomes a victim of a zombie apocalypse, and then he continues writing about his journey as a zombie to his eventual death... in haiku. It's a fun little book that provides a nice little bit of entertainment on a rainy afternoon.

Hopefully you've seen at least a handful of things this week that have aroused your interest enough to get you heading to the nearest bookstore. I'm about to read The Stolen Throne by David Gaider, a book set in the Dragon Age setting that serves as something of a prequel to the series of games, and then I'm probably going to be off to Bookmans to find a few of the books that have been recommended this week. Have a great weekend, and good luck to everyone heading back to school this week.

A Couple of Selections from My Shelves

I do read a lot, but I've never been big on thinking of book recommendations, and I haven't actually been reading as much lately. But there are still some books I consider up there when I think of what might be my favorites.

Watership Down by Richard Adams sits up there are the book I first think of whenever someone asks me my favorite. I have read it a couple of times, and for me to read a book more than once means I most definitely liked it. It's a long, epic tale of rabbits as the struggle to find a new home. I should also warn you I'm not very good at giving plot summaries, but I will try my hardest. The world building and mythology, along with the characters, is what keeps drawing me back to it.

The Farseer Trilogy and The Liveship Traders by Robin Hobb are two of my favorite fantasy trilogies. There's magic, dragons, assassins and once again interesting characters. The writing is good and it's on of the settings that keep coming back to see if the writer has written more in.

I read this series a long time ago, but it was another that always stuck me in the mind for the way the author used character shifts and footnotes to expand the world the author is showing. The Bartimaeus Trilogy by Jonathan Stroud still has the fantasy twist of magic and such, but takes place in a more modern setting. It's young adult, and I always thought it was a series that didn't get enough attention that it deserved.

I'm really really no good at summarizing. And I really really dislike summarizing. So I suppose you are going to have to take me at my word for it, and Google these series for yourselves. They really are good, and really sit at the top of my favorites list.

Is This Just Fantasy?

Oh, my favorite topic.  Books!  I have loved to read ever since I learned how, and most days (before I got a laptop, and even then...) I could be found hiding in my room with my nose in a book.  This topic of favorite books, though, is a difficult one.  I have many books that I enjoy, and if I tried to name them all I would be typing for a week.  That said, I'll try to just pick out my favorites and make this just a semi-long post instead of a novel... Haha, puns...

First off, my taste in books is pretty much anything that can be labeled "fiction."  I dislike historical books and biographies, instead choosing fantasy, sci-fi, mystery, and other fiction genres to read.  Fantasy may be my favorite type of book, specifically because there is nothing tying you to this world within their pages.  I suppose this includes books of a supernatural element, with vampires, witches, and magic everywhere.  Sci-Fi is alright, although I'm not much in to outer-space-type books.  Mysteries are also a good read, and trying to solve the case before the end is fun.

The other section of books that I love are myths and legends.  A surprising amount of space on my bookshelf is dedicated to variants of some ancient legend.  Stories of gods, goddesses, kings, and heroes are fabulous, especially when I can tie characters from one legend into another legend and create a sense of the world that may have existed at that time.  Greek and Roman stories, as well as British and Celtic legends, are probably my favorite to read.  Actually, I'm a bit obsessed with these stories, and can probably rattle of a good deal of them.  I suppose the Percy Jackson books should fit here, which were much better then the movie.  I'm currently reading a book that is a variant of Robin Hood, and I just finished one called The Fire Sword which mixed all of these European-based legends into one book, which was interesting.

Fantasy is a great genre.  Harry Potter, for example.  I am an extremely obsessed fan of the Harry Potter books, and have read them all multiple times.  If you would like an exact count, I can tell you, but they range from 3 to 22 times.  First off, J K Rowling is a phenomenal writer.  She created this entire world filled with magic spells, strange creatures, witches and wizards, and more.  The other great writer this connects to is Tolkien.  To my great shame, I haven't read all the Lord of the Rings books.  I have read the Hobbit and the Fellowship of the Ring, but I can't make it through the Two Towers.  Reaching the second half where it is just Frodo and Sam, and I couldn't bring myself to continue.  I do plan on rectifying this, however.

One of my favorite authors is a woman named Tamora Pierce.  She writes semi-children books, by which I mean I read most of them in 5th grade.  Even though they are extremely easy to read and rather childish, I will read them over and over again.  She has two separate worlds for her 27 books, 10 in one and 17 in the other.  One world follows the journey of four children as they learn how to use magic through everyday objects.  The other books split into smaller series that follow different females through their teen years as they become knights (secretly and dressed as a boy or later openly as a girl), or ambassadors, or policewomen (for lack of a better old-time description).  It's kind of difficult to explain her books, but they are great in a very simple geared-for-pre-teen-girls kind of way.

I think that just about covers the long series that I read.  Most of the rest of my books are individual books, or just a few books to a series.  The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a great series.  I'm reading a series that starts with the first book Dhampir, about a half-vampire vampire hunter and her half-elf partner.  Mercedes Lackey and Anne McCaffrey are good authors, although they have way too many books to keep up with.  Brandon Sanderson's books are also good, as are the dragon-based books of Naomi Novik.  R.A. Salvatore is another fantasy writer, with some of his books based on a drow elf who is banished to the surface world.  Another semi-childish series starts with Bloody Jack by L.A. Meyer, about an orphan girl who dresses as a boy and goes to sea in 19th century London.  Mickey Zucker Reichert's Nightfall series and some of her stand-alone novels are really good, and I need to read more of her books.

Okay, I think I'm going to wrap it up.  I hope you enjoyed reading the post, even if most of my books are childish and short.  Kathleen's up tomorrow, and I can't wait to read everyone else's posts (and then take a trip to McKay's Used Books).  Enjoy, and don't forget to read!

...but you don't have to take my word for it!

Back in the good old glory days of elementary and middle school, I used to read practically non-stop.  And then when high school started the homework load increased dramatically and I started staying after school to for rehearsals and team practices, so I’m sad to say I haven’t really read as much for fun as I used to.  I wanted to start off my post for this week with this little tidbit of information, mostly to help explain why I’ve included so many “kid-lit” books.  Not that I haven’t read a lot of great books since, but a good number of the books I read during elementary and middle school have really stuck with me and they continue to be some of my favorites to this day.  Anyway, I’m going to start with some of my favorite children’s books that are totally worth reading, even if you’re not a kid anymore, and progress into some of my favorite non-children’s fiction and non-fiction books. 

A Light in the Attic and Where the Sidewalk Ends by Shel Silverstein

I remember when we used to go to the library in elementary school and the librarian had to start a list of whose turn it was that week to check out either of these books, which were a collection of Silverstein’s children’s poems (or anyone’s poems, really).  A lot of them still make me chuckle as I’m reading. 

Stone Soup by Marcia Brown

 I was recently reintroduced to this story the other day, and in the 15 of so years since I had last heard it, I had forgotten how much I liked this book and still do.  It’s a good lesson-within-a-story about sharing and cooperating with others that I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone who needs a good book to read to small children. 

The Little House series by Laura Ingalls Wilder

I read these later on in elementary school during the long bus ride home, and they’re still some of my favorite books.  The books are historical fiction, but they were inspired by the author’s life in a pioneer family growing from a child into a young adult.  I guess it’s a book that more girls than boys would like because it’s told from Laura’s point of view, but anyone interested in the time period might like it. 

The Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling

I think I’ve already mentioned a few weeks ago that I didn’t read these books until my senior year of high school, but I’ll add to that by saying that I kind of wish I had read them sooner, but I’m glad that when I did start to read the series 1) because the entire series had already been published, so I didn’t have to wait for the next book to come out, and 2) because at 18 years old, I was able to read the books quickly and they weren’t as confusing as they would have been if I had read them in elementary or middle school.  But regardless of when you read the books (and you should), the story is really good.  

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

I’m so glad we had to read this book in 9^th grade English class.  This is a prime example of good storytelling paired with a great story.  I’ll just say that this story taught me a little about a lot concerning life in general. 

Othello by Shakespeare

Another jewel from a high school English class, this one being from the 10^th grade.  I could do without some of Shakespeare’s comedies, like A Midsummer Night’s Dream, but of his tragedies, this one was one was among my list of favorites.  I would really love to see this play performed live one day.

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

A really good book about the “Roaring ‘20s” that still contains modern sentiments that the audience can relate to.  I’m really excited for the Baz Luhrman movie, but, based on the creative liberties as a director he’s taken in the past, and I mean this with greatest respect to both author and director, I would recommend reading the book before seeing the movie, just sayin’.

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

This trilogy is probably one of my favorite series’ of Young Adult books, right next to Harry Potter.  I thought that both the characters and story were so interesting and well developed (If you happen to notice a pattern forming, simultaneous character/ plot development is really important to me J ).  I’ll admit it, I’m so glad that I jumped on The Hunger Games bandwagon, because I think the story and characters were really well-executed.         

A Little Bit Wicked: Life, Love, and Faith in Stages by Kristin Chenoweth with Joni Rodgers

I was a fan before I read the book, and now I’m an even bigger fan after I’ve finished reading it.  Chenoweth has always been one of my favorite musicians and performers, and now that I’ve read this book, I must say that I also emulate her outlook.  Reading this book was like listening to your most hilarious friend tell you a bunch stories that were both funny and honest.  If you don’t know who she is, I say that she is definitely worth looking up!       

 

A Separate Peace by John Knowles

If you were to pick one book off of this list to read, I would recommend this one.  I’ll try to not give much away about the plot, so I’ll just say that the story revolves mostly around two best friends and their classmates at an all-boys boarding school in New England during the mid-twentieth century.  Even though I can’t relate to the setting or the gravity of the story itself, I was able to relate to how the characters were feeling, because a lot of their sentiments are universal, regardless of setting.  Anyway, I’m afraid this little snippet doesn’t do the book the justice it deserves… As they used to say on “Reading Rainbow”: “but you don’t have to take my word for it.”  

Books are movies with all the deleted scenes.

This has the potential to spiral into a pages-long post for me, due partially to the fact that I have an entire ROOM of my house dedicated to books.  For the sake of the people who may read this post, though, I'll try to keep it to a manageable length.  ... The operative word in that sentence being "try", mind you.

I grew up reading books.  This is something that I unmistakably inherited from my mother - she has piles and bookcases and stacks and leaning towers of books that she'll almost certainly never read.  But they're there, and available, just in case she wants to peruse them.  My dad reads, too, though not anywhere near the level that my mom and I do.  I still remember the days that my elementary school had book fairs.  Most kids in my class would get a handful of books.  I would get several bags full of books.  It was never much of an effort on my part - I was, for the most part, interested in reading whatever I could, and my parents were only too happy to support that.  The books I got could only last me so long, though, even with multiple read-throughs, and so eventually I branched into my sisters' books too.  I--

Crap, I'm already going off into random territory.  This is what happens when I have -too- much to write about, I suppose.  Back to the topic at hand - favorite books.  This is a bit hard for me to narrow down, because whenever I think about the books I like, it leads me to think about similar books that I like, and then to think about completely different books that I like... and then it's half an hour later and I've been staring off into space, or something equally creepy.  I'll try to prevent that from happening too much here.

The first author that comes to mind is R.A. Salvatore.  I've read a lot of his books, but I'm especially fond of his Forgotten Realms series of books, particularly the ones involving two of my favorite characters created: Drizzt Do'Urden and Artemis Entreri.  I was completely clueless about these books until I started working at a bookstore in 2002.  In July of 2003, the first book in another series centered on Drizzt and his friends (the sixth series, if I'm counting correctly, though I didn't know that then) was released.  The title of it was "The Thousand Orcs", and just from looking at the cover, I knew: I really, really wanted to read this book.

I hadn't yet discovered my fascination with dark elves, but to me, this was the coolest book cover ever.

I read this book, and it was pretty good - but I felt like I was missing something... something essential to really get the most out of it.  That's when I discovered the extensive backlog of books that I'd missed out on.  Fortunately, there were two things working in my favor at that point.  First, almost all of the older books had been collected into single-book compilations at that point, and they were readily available for me to purchase.  Second, working at the bookstore got me a 33% discount on books (which I miss to this day).  Several months later, I was caught up, and hooked.  I have been ever since - these books speak to the part of me that's always wanted to be a D&D player, and they let me live out adventures that (possibly?) could have happened.  Drizzt was easily my favorite character in the series for years, and it's only recently that he's been replaced by Artemis, which... well, I'm not going to get into the reasoning behind it.  But the point is that R.A. Salvatore writes some pretty decent fantasy, and I enjoy them greatly.

Next up on my list is a series of books called The Night Angel Trilogy by Brent Weeks.  My discovery of this series was an interesting experience.  I'd hit a lull a little over a year ago where I didn't have anything new to read, and so I'd been researching popular fantasy books online to see if anything sounded good.  The first book in the series, The Way of Shadows, came up a couple of times, and I added it to my list and moved on.  A couple of months later, I was coming home from Los Angeles, and I stopped at a bookstore in LAX to see what they had.  Boom, the book was there, and I bought it to read on the flights home.  ... Occasionally, if I really enjoy what I'm doing (reading, gaming, whatever), I'll get completely absorbed into it and do it until I'm interrupted.  That's exactly what happened with this book.  I read it for the entirety of my first flight, gave it a break during my layover, and finished it on the second flight.  688 pages, gone in a day.  It took me several weeks after my return, but I finally tracked down and purchased the second and third books in the series (Shadow's Edge and Beyond the Shadows, respectively).  These were devoured in short order, and then I was only left with the sad feeling of being finished with something that was supremely satisfying (much like eating a piece of delicious cake).  The story is fairly basic, at least in the beginning - scared guild rat wants to train under master wetboy (-not- assassin), trials and stuff happen, etc.  But somewhere within the story, you come to realize that you actually care about the characters, and what's going through their heads.  There are a lot of twists to the story, some foreshadowed and some not.  But I found the story, as a whole, to be pretty fantastic and well worth reading.  I've re-read the entire series at least twice this year alone.  I only wish there was more to it, after the end of the third book.

Third on my list is The Coldfire Trilogy, by C.S. Friedman.  More fantasy here (anyone see a trend?), and it's mostly your typical fantasy fare, with one notable exception.  The main anti-hero character is twisted, cruel, typically selfish, and completely badass.  To be fairly honest, without that character, I likely would have lost interest in the series halfway through the first book.  But his presence, and the constant question of "what is this guy going to do when (insert situation here)", kept me going.  I don't re-read this series often, honestly, just because the story isn't as gripping when you know everything that happens - but I really enjoyed it while I was reading it, so there we go.

Before we get to my next thought, I need to interject a series that I only recently started, and (sadly) probably wouldn't have thought to include if I didn't have several volumes of it sitting next to me.  I was a supporter of the Kickstarter drive for a webcomic called The Order of the Stick, and part of my reward was getting a reprinted copy of most of the books.  I would assume that most people reading this are familiar with the strip, and read it - if for some reason you're not (or you don't), go here and start reading it.  But only a few, mind you.  Come back and finish my post before you get sucked too deeply into the strip.  Everything about the comic fulfills the D&D itch that I mentioned in my R.A. Salvatore paragraph... only moreso.  My only complaint, really, is that the story drags on in several places.  Having the books is nice, but having to wait for comic updates is agonizing sometimes.

... Wow, this post is getting pretty lengthy.  I'll try to wrap it up over the next few paragraphs.  There are several books and series that I enjoy, but I'll just list them out with little blurbs of info.

- Killobyte, by Piers Anthony.  Real people in a VR game world.  Silliness, gaming fun, a "save the girl" mission, with a dash of adult-themed situations.  Throw in an angsty teenage hacker to cause conflict, and stir.

- The Thief, by Megan Whalen Turner.  The story of a thief who gets sent on a secret mission for a king that he doesn't claim allegiance to, trying to retrieve an ancient relic.  It's a pretty simple read, but I really enjoyed it.  I recently discovered that it was the first in a series of four books.  I had no idea about that until several days ago.  The other three books are now near the top of my "need to read" list.

- Catspaw, by Joan D. Vinge.  Actually the second book in a trilogy (but the first one I read), it follows a young halfbreed crippled psion as he tries to fix himself (and not get killed in the process).  More of a sci-fi/fantasy blend than most of my other books, and more of the adult themes than the others as well.

- Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind.  Oh, the Sword of Truth series.  The first four books in the series were good - and I'd even call the first two (WFR, and Stone of Tears) great.  But after the first four books, the series went downhill, and in a bad way.  The eighth book, Naked Empire, made me physically ill to read.  Not many books can claim that.  But, I digress.  Wizard's First Rule is about a woods guide named Richard, who decides to help a strange woman in a white dress, and gets himself caught up in an epic battle against an evil tyrant.  The characters are fairly well-developed, but the story is the main attraction here.  Fighting, and wizardly wisdom, and love, and some red leather-clad blonde-haired women.  No, really, that last part is pretty important to the series as a whole.  I'm not sure how many chapters in this first book alone focus on them, but it's a lot.  Anyway.  I recommend the first four books, but tread carefully after those.  I won't be held responsible for any brain damage incurred by later entries.

- The Harry Potter series.  Enough said.

Finally, I'll wrap it up with the novel Battle Royale.  All of this excitement and fandom about The Hunger Games, and all the controversy about how edgy and dark it is?  This book did all that, and more, twelve years before Hunger Games even came out.  After an economic crisis, Japan becomes a totalitarian state, and every year a randomly selected class of junior high students are selected to participate in "The Program".  They're placed in an isolated area and fight to the death, until only one of them is left alive.  Some of the students want to group together and find a way out.  Some want to kill everyone.  This makes Hunger Games look tame in comparison.  It was popular enough to spawn two movies and a manga series, and it's still popular today (partially thanks to Hunger Games, no doubt).

Actually, on the subject of manga - I don't read it anywhere near as much as I once did, but I really enjoy Prince of Tennis, Rurouni Kenshin, Maison Ikkoku, Hot Gimmick, and several other series that I won't mention for fear of damaging my public image further.

Whew, this took longer than I thought it would.  Hopefully you find something potentially interesting my list - and if you have any questions about any of them, or (somehow) want to know more stuff I like, just comment below.  Thanks for reading!

Week of 8/12 - Breather Topic: Favorite Books

I'm sad to start this announcement by saying that Kelsey will no longer be a regular contributor to the blog. We're looking for a new person to join as soon as possible, so if you're interested, shoot us an email at onbothsidesofthefence@gmail.com. Until then, expect something a little different and exciting each week on Saturdays.

This week's topic focuses on talking about a form of art/entertainment that has been around forever. The novel is in many ways one of the most respected ways of telling a story, and it offers more of an opportunity for the audience to fill in the blanks than many of the other more visual media we've discussed in previous topics like this one.

Personally, I feel like I don't read enough, and hopefully this week's posts will send a lot of us to the book store looking for awesome books that people recommend. John will start the discussion tomorrow, and I'll be back on Friday to finish this topic off.

Bikers Against Child Abuse

I'm going to start off by linking the article, because it was rather long and I think you guys should read it for yourselves, beyond what I have to say here: Bikers Against Child Abuse Make Abuse Victims Feel Safe.

I found this article a couple of weeks ago, probably closer to when I was first released in July. When I was done reading it I wanted to share it with someone, because I could not believe I had not known an organization like this existed before, I have not really had the chance to share it else where, so I am going ahead and sharing it with you.

I remember feeling very awed when I finished this article, because the people's dedication to helping those victims really moved me. And to lay away that stereotypical gruff, mean biker exterior and show the deep, caring, compassionate individuals they really are was amazing.

There really isn't much that I feel I need to add in way of commentary to this article. It isn't something controversial or where my opinion could shed light on the situation. I just thought it was something I could and should share with you readers. I mean I stumbled upon the article myself because someone linked it and I felt like clicking it, I would have never found out about them without that link. So I just thought I would share something with you that had been a cathartic read and to some degree brightened up my day by reminding me of the good in humanity.

Sony and The Unfinished Swan

So for this week, I'd like to talk about this CNN article titled "Indie video games get help from a 'big brother'". The general premise of the article is that Sony (makers of the PS3, one of the three major current generation video game consoles), is getting behind a tiny indie group called Giant Sparrow. Giant Sparrow plans on making a game called The Unfinished Swan where you start in a perfectly blank world and use the various buttons to paint the world behind you to reveal the background, which definitely sounds cool, but I'd like to focus more on that first part: Sony is backing them.

Now, reading this article is interesting for a lot of reasons. First off, I never knew that Sony also backed thatgamecompany, who made Flower and Journey. Both of those are widely lauded as some of the best indie games on the system, and that's not just because Sony backed them. They're good. Seriously. Check them out. (Flower is one of my favorites because it's one of very few experiences I've ever had where not a single word was ever spoken yet it still made me cry).

Second, I find it really interesting to believe that Sony is giving money to indie projects. I mean, here's a company who puts out titles like Uncharted, which has sold millions of copies, saying things like it will be a success "if they can get just one person to say "Unfinished Swan" has affected them". That's a huge difference in outlook. AAA titles with huge, huge budgets are becoming more and more common and more and more homogenized. Call of Duty releases a new $60 game a year that absurd amounts of people buy, and there are thousands of other clones that keep the shooting mechanics, cover mechanics, setting, etc. The worst part is that even other first person shooters that were different are starting to become more and more like Call of Duty because publishers think that "like Call of Duty" is what is going to sell.

This is why Sony putting money into indie projects makes me happy. Not only is it not homogenized, but it's not even all that profitable. I mean, college students certainly do know how to stretch a dollar, so as far as return on investment goes, it might not be too unprofitable, but indie games usually only sell for around $10. Any money Sony puts into The Unfinished Swan may be going into something most people will have never heard of. They'll probably make back their investment, but they certainly won't make billions of dollars in profit, so what does this say to me?

It says that even though Sony is obviously interested in profit, maybe they're interested in the art too. Maybe this is like the charitable arm of the company, taking promising developers who really have the inspiration and the drive to make something great and granting them the tools they need. Maybe there really is room in the high-profile video game world for something as unusual and innovative as The Unfinished Swan, and maybe there really is hope for AAA titles to share the spotlight a bit.

Maybe.

The Human Species Evolution

Okay, so I was looking for a news story to write about, and I came across one in the science section of BBC News.  It was about a new species of humans that was confirmed to have existed.  Here is the link if anyone wants to read it.  This article was particularly interesting to me because as a geology major, I like that sort of thing.  And I hadn't thought about multiple human species before.

Basically the article said that there have now been at least three confirmed species of humans that existed two million years ago.  The one that we evolved from used to be the only line of humans until about 50 years ago, when another was discovered through fossil fragments, and again recently.  Because there is only one strand of humans today, the others must have dies out.

I had newer thought about having mutations of humans that tried to survive several million years ago.  I mean, it makes sense.  Everything has to evolve, and there are many different animals with ancestors that branched into strands of mutations that became the animals that we see today.  There were species that died out back then, so why not have humans do the same?  Trials of what would works best that used "survival of the fittest" to narrow down the strands until just one is left to form a typical "human."  From a scientific viewpoint, it is obvious that of course there would be different branches of humans.

So I thought that was an interesting article that made me think about something I hadn't considered before.  I hope you enjoyed reading, and Kathleen will end the week for us tomorrow.

And The Medal Goes To...

With the 2012 London Olympics in full swing, I thought I’d use this week to write about an Olympic-themed news story.  Like many, I’m a casual Olympic spectator, and while I know next to nothing about most of the sports or any of the Olympic committees, I do enjoy cheering on team U.S.A with family and friends from the comfort of my living room.  So, when I looked over the Sports section of the newspaper this morning, I saw an interesting headline near the top of the first page about the taxation of bonuses that U.S. athletes receive for winning medals in the Games.  Apparently, the U.S. Olympic Committee rewards North American gold-medal winners with $25,000, silver-medalists with $15,000, and bronze-medalists with $10,000, all of which is taxed, just as any other income is taxed.  But when this information became public, some of our U.S. legislators are calling for the revocation of this law, saying that the athletes who volunteer to represent our country should not be taxed on the rewards they earn for brining glory to our country.  So, where does that leave us?

Well, long story short, we have an income tax, so income needs to be taxed.  This isn’t meant to take anything away from the athletes who work hard to represent our country in an international arena, because that would be doing them a completely uncalled for disservice. However, hardworking people who aren’t world-class athletes have to pay taxes on their income, and that includes performance bonuses, every year.  And when you think about it, every two years, or four years depending on how you look at it, athletes “bring glory to our country” on a gigantic international stage at the Olympic Games, and that’s something special in and of itself.  But, ordinary people also “bring glory to our country” everyday in different ways, ranging from small and unnoticed to sometimes big and newsworthy.  And yet, they are still expected to pay taxes on whatever bonuses they receive.  So, it seems only fair that Olympic athletes should be expected to pay taxes on their bonuses, just like everyone else.  Besides, Olympic athletes have numerous options for tax deductions in things, say travel expenses.  
  

Crime and Punishment, with Sex Offenders

I've been struggling a bit to find a suitable topic for this post, mostly because I don't follow the news as closely as I once did.  But while crawling the web tonight, looking for something notable that I could write about (and that interested me), I came across an article that gave me pause.  In short, I think it'll do.  You can see the article for yourself here.

For those not wishing to click through and read the article, I'll summarize.  In June of 2008, two men of an appropriate age engaged in consensual sex.  One of them, named Nick, is HIV-positive.  Despite being aware of his condition, he didn't disclose it to his partner, named Adam, basing the decision around his being on medication and using proper protection.  Three months later, Nick was arrested and charged with criminal transmission of HIV - which, in Iowa (where the incident took place), is a charge comparable to manslaughter, robbery, and kidnapping.  Nick entered a plea of guilty, on the advice of his attorney, even though Adam eventually tested negative for HIV.  The result?  Nick was incarcerated for nine months with a bond of $250,000, and was eventually sentenced to 25 years in prison.  He appealed his sentence to the judge, and is now out of prison - although on supervised probation.  He's also had to register as a sex offender, and will have to do so for the rest of his life.

So, was this an appropriate punishment for the crime that took place?  ... Parts of it, I can (mostly) agree with, but I don't agree with most of it.  The only thing that Nick was guilty of was not disclosing his condition to Adam before they engaged in their sexual encounter.  This isn't even remotely okay - if you have a condition, it's your responsibility to inform the other person about it beforehand - both as a responsible human being, and as someone who (assumedly) cares about the person you're doing things with.  Do I believe Nick was at fault for that?  Absolutely.  I don't, however, agree with him being charged with "criminal transmission of HIV".  As stated earlier - no such transmission took place.  How can you rightfully charge someone with something that didn't actually happen?  It's not even like one of the highly-publicized court cases where the jury decided someone was not guilty - there's irrefutable proof that the crime didn't occur.  Does Nick's plea of guilty supercede hard, factual evidence?  This really confuses me, and makes me wonder why we don't have some sort of "common sense clause" to prevent that sort of thing (or, if we do, why it wasn't used).

So, Nick was charged with what he was charged with.  First off, $250,000 bond?  Really?  I mean, for someone who's well-known and, you know, actually has that kind of money, then sure.  But Nick seems like your everyday kind of guy, and most people I know don't have a spare quarter of a million dollars to post for bond.  Why set a bond at all, if it's going to be something so ridiculous?  And as far as the sentencing goes - 25 years in prison seems like a pretty harsh sentence for this kind of thing.  Did Nick screw up?  Absolutely. I don't think he should spend a quarter (or more) of his life in prison because of it (again, especially because of the lack of transmission).  The nine months he spent incarcerated before the trial seems like it was enough, to me.  I don't see the point of the prison sentence.

Now, the bit about registering as a sex offender is where I start getting into my personal gray area.  First off, I want to think out loud (or, in text, as you will) about the concept of a sex offender registration.  What's the purpose of it?  The obvious answer is to identify people who are potentially dangerous and/or of a higher risk to break the law concerning sexual activities.  One of the notable facts about the sex offender registry, however, is that it doesn't differentiate (on the surface) between the different crimes committed.  Looking up an individual on the website does give you details about what they were convicted of, and when - but it requires you to search out that individual person.  On the surface, people like Nick are lumped in with people who have been convicted of child molestation, rape, and the like.  Is this wrong?  ... That's hard to say.  I believe there are changes that could help the system, such as a more visible initial differential between the different crimes, or for lesser crimes, a time-limited registration.  I'm a big believer in second chances for people, and after what he went through with Adam, I would have to believe that Nick isn't likely to fail to disclose his condition again.  Despite this, he'll still have to be a registered sex offender for the foreseeable future, and he'll be more limited in his opportunities because of that.  I know that there's no perfect solution out there for this kind of thing, but it seems wrong to lump all offenders together on a single list, regardless of the nature of their crime.

That's about all I've got for this topic.  Pendleton will be here tomorrow with her topic, and as always, feel free to leave any comments or thoughts below (and on the other entries in our blog).  Thanks for reading.

Blood and Dude Sex

First off, I'd like to say that I'm incredibly excited to say that this is the one hundredth post to this blog, and it seems like a fitting time for implementing a new format. To kick off the first of our Current Events weeks, I'm going to talk about an issue that sort of ties into last week's topic of discrimination that I couldn't figure out how to bring up in my post, so I'm gonna ramble a bit about it here: blood donation and the non-heterosexual male.

For those of you that don't know, one of the FDA's current policies (originally enacted in 1985, back before we really understood what AIDS was or how it spread) for donated blood is that if you are a male that has had sexual contact with another male even once since 1977, you are not allowed to donate blood. If you are a female that has had sexual contact with a male that has had sexual contact with another male even once since 1977, you are not allowed to donate blood for one year after last exposure. This issue is one that carries a lot of weight for me on a personal level, so perhaps I should start with explaining my background with it.

I've been donating blood with a semi-large group of my friends fairly regularly since December 2009. Usually the majority of us are able to give, but there's almost always at least one of us that can't. Ever since they eliminated the maximum pulse requirement, that one person has never been me. I'm also one of the least prone in our group to serious problems with feeling ill afterward. My blood type is O+, which means that my red cells can go to anyone that has an Rh positive blood type. All things considered, I'm a pretty great blood donor.

I'm also bisexual. I've yet to ever be  in a sexual relationship with another guy (for reasons that are not to be discussed on this blog), but if I were in that position... I'm not really sure what I'd do. Actually, I know exactly what I'd do. I'd lie to the blood donor center. I'd also invite my theoretical boyfriend to come give blood with me the next time I went.

Now, I'm not going to pretend that MSMs aren't at a somewhat higher risk than straight guys for contracting HIV. That being said, I'm pretty sure that the difference between being a slut that'll fuck anything with a pulse and opposite-sex sex organs and having sex only in the context of a committed relationship is far more significant for determining risk than sexual orientation.

I can understand why the fear of AIDS and lack of understanding led to the creation of this ban on MSM blood donors, but the fact that it exists in this day and age is utterly ridiculous. I have a lot of facts from the American Red Cross about blood donation and why we need more people doing it, but the most striking is that under 38% of the population is eligible to give blood, and the fact of the matter is that most people simply don't.

I think that Spain and Italy have the right idea on this. As stated in the article, their policies prevent donation if you've had more than one sex partner in the past six months, regardless of sexual orientation. This makes much more sense, and with how much more reliable HIV tests are today, there's no real reason to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Giving up the opportunity for perfectly healthy blood because of a homophobic policy is just... absurd.

As a final note, I wholeheartedly encourage everybody reading to head over to their nearest blood donor center and go through the screening process to try to give blood. I can't stand needles, and this kept me from trying to give blood for a while, but upon finally being convinced that it was worth trying once, I found that it wasn't that bad. You don't have to look at the needle when it goes in, it doesn't hurt, it's over before you know it, there are rarely any adverse effects unless you fail to follow the instructions given, and you get free cookies and juice.

...Seriously, who doesn't love free cookies and juice?

Current Events and a New Format

Okay, I'm here to announce some structural changes starting this week. Normally this space (as you know) is used to announce the topic we've selected to discuss this week. But with this week, and every other week after, this space won't be as needed. That is because we elected the weeks to be "news story weeks."

Basically, I'm going to lay out the month format for you to see.

Week 1: Current Events
Week 2: Breather Topic (aka: usually in the style of "favorite ___")
Week 3: Current Events
Week 4: Serious Topic (aka: the stuff we've usually been talking about)

When we say "Current Events" we mean that each person is going to pick a news story for that week that interests them, and write about it. For two weeks out of the month we won't all be writing about the same topic, instead we'll be sharing something that we personally think is interesting and want to show you.

So I hope you'll find the new format enjoyable and as interesting as we find it ourselves. I'm am personally looking forward to what everyone has to share this week.

Equality for everyone, but please no politics!

Okay, so I liked this topic and spent a lot of time figuring out what I wanted to say, so hopefully I can make some kind of sense.  Discrimination has been a natural part of our history, based on race, gender, and other qualifications.  Many people have participated in discrimination even without consciously realizing it, by their actions against certain people.  Laws have been set up for lowering the amount of discrimination that is apparent in our society, and they have had varying amounts of success.

I don't know much about individual anti-discrimination laws, but they seem to all relate to giving minority groups more rights, correct?  Also, the definition of a "minority group" is a little fuzzy to me.  Why does women count as a minority group?  Aren't there just as many women as men, or is my perception of our population just majorly screwed up?  I don't know, I could be wrong, I have no idea.  I understand Hispanics or blacks in the United States being a minority group, because there is a  lesser percentage of them compared to the whole.  But isn't the gender ratio relatively equal?

So, I also don't really understand feminists who are obsessed with getting absolutely equal rights and then get pissed when the men fire back at them about things like maternity leave.  I don't really get that, but then I also have no idea about the discrimination in the workplace, which is what I think people are generally getting at when they are talking about such issues.  I think that if is isn't really a big issue for you, don't worry about it.  It's not really worth all the fuss to just get a raise or something just because of being a woman, instead of just taking it.  But then, I'm a really easy-going person and don't care much about working politics.

Races are also an interesting discussion.  Due to the lovely racism prior to the Civil War, we seem to still have a general spat between blacks and whites, even though most people have gotten over it all.  It seems to have gone crazy, with a fuss being made when whites do something racist towards minority groups even if there are cases of the opposite happening.  Or maybe that's just what you hear more of, I don't know.  I think the laws pertaining to races should be equal, just on principle.  I have no idea of they are or not, but they should be.

Now we get to sexual orientation.  I think the Chick-Fil-A deal is a bit worn out by now, and I won't go into that at all.  I personally think that non-strait people should have all the same rights and freedoms and such that straight people have.  It should just be like that, and there shouldn't be a major fuss about it.  I could probably go longer on this, but I won't for the sake of everyone reading this post.

So hopefully that wasn't too ramble-y and chaotic.  Enjoy reading the news topics that every is going to be posting next week!

Harassment is never okay.

Hello, everyone. So, like, um, everyone here, I'm also white and (I think?) middle class. I'm also a chick. I believe we've made this part clear.

That said, despite whatever class I may be in, I kind of grew up in the ghetto, but to be honest, didn't really realize it until I started going to school outside of it. I remember looking around near the end of my 5th grade year and noticing that I was literally the only white person in my class. I can't tell you if that's an accurate descriptor of how my entire elementary school education went, because I honestly don't remember. I didn't notice or care what race anyone else was. It didn't make a difference because I was tiny and didn't care about such things.

Honestly though, to me, it really just feels like discrimination based on race is an issue that just isn't from our time. I don't feel like I've passed judgments based on race nor do I really feel like anyone I know has. Because of this, I really feel like laws meant to "level the playing field" based on race are really superfluous. Obviously, we shouldn't get rid of anti-discrimination laws. There needs to be a legal basis for persecuting the kind of jerkfaces who would make decisions that way, but I just don't think it's widespread enough to require things like affirmative action to get there. John brought up the idea of equal opportunity employers and that's great, so I don't understand why there are practices that explicitly take into account things like race and gender.

The fact is that whether you are black, white, hispanic, Asian, or whatever race you identify as, you should be judged by the qualities you have and not what race you are. That said, there are definitely people that are at a disadvantage. It is so much harder to go from a family that has never gone to college and expects you to go straight to work after (or during) high school to a college education. That is a hard road that requires a lot of work and that sucks, however, that road is just as hard regardless of what race you are. If you are white and impoverished, that doesn't make you less impoverished. Basically, as far as leveling the playing field goes, I think it can be necessary, but I really think the factors that need to be leveled might be race-corrolated, but that's certainly not what they should be based on.

Unfortunately, I do think there's a bigger issue that America has today regarding discrimination, and I think that that's discrimination based on gender. In case you haven't gathered by now, I'm a girl majoring in computer science, which is a heavily male-dominated field. The problem is that while being a different race doesn't really affect anything, being a different gender does (a bit). Females get pregnant (Guys do not). Societally, females are more likely to be stay-at-home parents than males are. Honestly though, I really feel like the major problem is just the way people treat gender relations. Societally, there are a lot of differences between what men and women are expected to be, and a lot of them are crap. For example, there was a recent controversy about a woman who entered a fighting game tournament and eventually quit because of being sexually harassed. When asked for comment about it, the coach actually said that "the sexual harassment is part of our culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community."

Obviously, you can find horror stories anywhere about any discrimination, but this seems so much more widespread. Genders are different and I don't think we as a society have really moved past that people can be whatever they want to be (or be into whoever they want to be). I'm a programmer and I feel like because I'm a girl, I have to work harder and be better than my male counterparts because I'm absolutely terrified of being hired just because I'm a chick. I remember when my friend got into college with me I was so excited, not just for him, but because that meant that someone with similar qualifications to me was accepted into the same program. And while I guess it's hard to argue against something that makes me work harder and be better, that's just not something I should have to be afraid of.

I firmly believe that in a lot of respects (and as cheesy as it sounds), diversity is its own reward. If you're working on designing a game (I admit I have a bit of a narrow focus), you want as many different ideas and viewpoints as you can. If you were constantly surrounded by the people you grew up with and went to school with, then how much would you really be challenged and grow? I believe that there are so many advantages to casting as broad a net as possible and I believe that there are qualified people in just about all of those categories. However, if you're not qualified for a job, you shouldn't get it solely on the basis of being the token [insert minority here].

What does "level playing field" really mean anyway?

Continuing with the pattern— I am a white female and, like many others, I come from a middle class background.  I wish I had thought to share more about my background sooner, because I think that our circumstances play a great role in shaping what our opinions.  It kinda seems like good stuff to keep in mind when you read anything.  On the issue of anti-discrimination law, I think that as long as discrimination exists, anti-discrimination laws need to exist.  I know that I’m stating the obvious, but this is pretty much common ground that reasonable people can agree upon.  But, the question over whether our current anti-discrimination laws working too hard or not working hard enough? That’s a bit more complicated.

In some cases, anti-discrimination laws can help to level the playing field by creating “equal opportunities”.  Sadly, an outside force cannot really create equal opportunity; there are just too many factors that can’t realistically be addressed.  A teacher at my high school once told my class about a struggling student who was in one of her classes a long time ago.  This student rarely did his homework, he slept during class, and he performed poorly on tests and quizzes.  By this point, I was wondering what this kid’s issue was.  Why didn’t he go to sleep at home and actually try to pay attention during class?  So then my teacher told the class that when she talked to the student about his performance, he told her that he was rarely able to get a full night’s sleep because his dad would wake him up at one or two in the morning and get him to help with some kind of overnight work related to his job, and that’s why he had a hard time staying awake in class.  Now, I have no idea if this story was true or not, but it sounds pretty plausible for the time and place that it supposedly occurred.  Long story short, the kid received tutoring and he was able to pass, but he certainly wasn’t about to head off to college, because his dad needed him at home.  So even though some factors can be addressed, we can’t put anyone on true equal footing, and that’s something that we need to keep in mind.  

Anti-discrimination laws can also open new loopholes for those looking to gain the system, and often times those who the laws are set up to help aren’t receiving the benefits they should.  I know that loopholes can be found within any set of laws, but I’ve seen far too many people take advantage of “equalizers” that they didn’t really need just because they knew how to twist the facts in order to work the system, and they end up taking away from someone who really could have used the benefits.  That, and sometimes the people who benefit from anti-discrimination law are able to take their benefits too far, and that’s not good either.  Behold, a new can of worms is opened.  

To echo what Brandon said earlier this week, it seems that a lot of anti-discrimination laws aren’t really solving issues so much as they’re providing quick fixes to problems.  I agree; if we really want anti-discrimination laws to work, then we have to look at the root of the issue.  I think that the terms of many anti-discrimination laws need to be refreshed to ensure that the laws are serving their purpose as best they can.        Anti-discrimination laws will never be able to do what we really need for them to do, that is, to end discrimination or create an environment where discrimination cannot exist, anti-discrimination laws are definitely necessary in a world in which discrimination exists.    

After all, death discriminates against no one.

I suppose I'll follow the trend here and give a bit of background info about myself, and my status, before we get started with my thoughts on this week's topic.  I'm white, and... well, I think that my family is upper-middle class.  I'm really not sure, to be honest, because I have a lot of conflicting things in that respect.  For lack of a better solution, though, I'm just going to go with that.

Anti-discrimination laws are something that I find fairly difficult to discuss, because I find it pretty hard to track the impact that they have (or the extent to which they're followed).  Most of my experience with these laws are going to come from my job, as I've dealt with the hiring (and firing, sometimes) of new employees for the last 6+ years.  I'm not sure if I'll be able to come up with any thoughts outside of that particular box, but I'll try, at least.

Equal opportunity.  I really didn't understand the impact that those two words had until I started doing interviews and hiring people to work.  For anyone unfamiliar, being an "equal opportunity employer" mandates that you don't discriminate for or against applicants based on any non-essential traits that may exist (race, gender, orientation, etc).  What does this mean for employers?  Essentially, it means that you take the necessary steps to ensure you're following those rules and protecting yourself.  My place of employment has a very structured interview guide, and several of the questions on it are ridiculous.  Nonetheless, I use that guide with every single person that I interview.  Why?  Because having that constant is the first step in providing equal opportunity.  If you're asking every applicant the same questions, then there's no favoritism, no "free rides"... the decision is (or should be, anyway) based off of the applicant's answers to the questions. I once had an applicant threaten me with a lawsuit, because I hired another person over them - they claimed that I was discriminating against them, based on their race.  I invited them to do so, and nothing came of it.  In that respect, I would have been able to prove that I was following the law, and within that scope, I think that the laws do a fantastic job of ensuring equal opportunity - when they're followed.  Compliance is something that each individual has to take ownership of, and I feel comfortable in saying that it's not a priority for a lot of people.  I don't see an effective way to change this, however, without instituting some regular review of the hiring processes for every company in existence.  That's not likely to happen.

I've never really run into any issues with employees complaining about not getting opportunities, either - not based on anything discriminatory-wise, anyway.  I've trained a lot of employees, and I've promoted a lot of employees, and there have been members of multiple races within that group.  Again, I think it's entirely possible that there are some people out there who give more opportunities to people based on factors that they shouldn't, and I agree that it's wrong - but I don't see a way we can effectively monitor that sort of thing and stop it (proactively, anyway).

What groups should be protected by anti-discriminatory laws?  All of them.  In my opinion, discrimination is most commonly thought of as white people discriminating against other races.  That may be true in some cases - but not all of them.  The truth of the matter is that everyone has the potential to discriminate against everyone else, whether they're a different race or not.  I was discriminated against in the 11th grade by my Marketing teacher, because I steadfastly refused to join DECA (an international association of marketing enthusiasts, students, whatever).  I was the only member of the class not to join, and so I kept the teacher from hitting the 100% enrollment mark that she so desired - and so I was discriminated against.  My completed assignments were marked down for no reason, I was forced to stay after class just to use the shared printer... that class was absolute hell for me.  Did I deserve to be discriminated against?  Not at all.  Would bringing it to the attention of the authorities (the principal, school board, somebody) have helped?  Maybe, maybe not.  My point is that everyone is susceptible to discrimination, and everyone is capable of discriminating.  It's up to each person to determine how they'll act (or react) in any situation.

I got kind of off-topic with that, and I apologize for that.  My thoughts, basically, are that anti-discrimination is a thing that everyone in the world should embrace and practice.  Do I think it will happen?  No.  I also don't think that laws can be but so effective in making it happen.  I briefly considered whether an extreme law might help  - for example, stranding a diverse group of people on an island for a month, and forcing them to try to work together to survive.  But realistically, I think that would end in bloodshed and tribal wars.  Discrimination is an unfortunate part of the world, and everyone would be better off if it didn't exist.  If you have any fantastic ideas about how to end it, write your local congressman or senator.

Random thought for (hopeful) comments - if I attempted to start a cable TV channel based around white music and entertainment and was denied, would I have a case for discrimination, given that such channels exist for other races?