It irks me to no end that “for-profit”, supposed, educational intuitions are allowed to utilize a “dot edu” domain name. It is my personal belief that this is in violation of the established internet domain name protocols and common decency. I believe it is a violation of good faith and also of the best interests of the student.
“For profit” companies are required to purchase a “dot com” domain name because the “com” stands for commercial, meaning that monetary transactions either take place on the website, through the website, or with the owners of the website. This is exactly what is going on with such intuitions as the University of Phoenix, ITT Technical Institute, and many others. However, because of National Accreditation they are allowed to purchase “dot edu” domain names. Other educational websites selling certificates and training are not allowed to do so, and make no mistake, in all of these instances you are literally buying your training, not paying for, but buying.
National Accreditation is sometimes a misnomer because the standards for such are always consistently lower than Regional Accreditation, which is what you really want to be looking for in a school. These schools that earn Regional Accreditation will actually accept one anthers credits, whereas with these other schools you’ll be lucky if they accept one another’s credits (mostly that answer is “no”). And while this is perfectly legal, it is (in my mind) false advertising to the student who may very well believe all schools are equal.
I am not asking for these schools to be made illegal, just make their purchase of “dot edu” domains illegal, and perhaps require them to notify all prospective students that their credits earned there will not be accepted anywhere else. I believe that not to do so creates a lie of omission and threatens the actual value of educational degrees, hence the mad rush to get degrees our society is currently undergoing and the devaluing of degrees earned in more traditional institutions.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Legislation: The Social Responsibility in Parenting Act
Social responsibility is one of my big political points, and overpopulation is another. I believe the two are connected, in that those that have more than two children are being socially irresponsible regardless of their financial ability to take care of those children or not. Wealth is a limited thing and by having more than two children you are either setting one or more of them up for a substandard lifestyle, or (in my mind) worse, forcing someone else’s child into one.
I also understand some people claim that their assumed right (because there is no such real right) to have as many children as they want is connected to their religious freedom. I completely disagree, but I can acknowledge that any such attempt to curtail their social irresponsibility in this regard would lead to a stalling of any act of legislation attempting to enforce it. Therefore I have come up with a rough outline for the following act of legislation which I call the “Social Responsibility in Parenting Act”.
The very first step is to not just end tax credits for having children (if a person claims they should be allowed to have as many children as they want because they can financially support it then they should receive no assistance from the government), but to reverse it, giving a tax credit to those families that have only one, or no children. This is accomplished by associating a tax credit with each person, or a “child credit”, for which each person can either receive their tax credit each year, or have a child. In the case where there is one or more children and divorce, or other family splitting, occurs, the same rules in place for taxes currently still apply, only the parent claiming primary custody is the one who loses their tax credits instead of visa versa.
Under the above system this allows for a two parent, two child system (which is my ideal) but does not address those who claim the “right” to have more than two. This could be solved by allowing for those with no children and/ or no plans for children to sell their “child credits” to another family for a lump sum, surrendering their right for the yearly tax credit they would receive instead. Much the same way you can settle a structured settlement for one lump sum, this would allows those with no interest in having children and no, or limited, need for the tax credit to allow for others to have larger families, effectively halting population growth (at least legally), and hopefully reducing it.
As for the violations of this new act of legislation, well there are thousands of couples unable to have children and stuck in the adoption process, sometimes due to lack of available qualified children. By taking away the children of violators of this Act, after it has become law, we could provide for these new families while remaining within the statutes created by the same Act.
It is my belief that we need something in place soon, if not now, to help curtail the overpopulation of our own country. The side effects of overpopulation can already be seen, in previous years with the large number of families’ dependant of state or federal assistance, and more recently with the collapse of the economy and the consequences thereof. I believe this act would create a fair “middle ground” allowing for those who want larger families, rewarding those who choose to be more socially responsible, and assisting those who want to start a family but for biological reasons are having difficulty doing so.
I also understand some people claim that their assumed right (because there is no such real right) to have as many children as they want is connected to their religious freedom. I completely disagree, but I can acknowledge that any such attempt to curtail their social irresponsibility in this regard would lead to a stalling of any act of legislation attempting to enforce it. Therefore I have come up with a rough outline for the following act of legislation which I call the “Social Responsibility in Parenting Act”.
The very first step is to not just end tax credits for having children (if a person claims they should be allowed to have as many children as they want because they can financially support it then they should receive no assistance from the government), but to reverse it, giving a tax credit to those families that have only one, or no children. This is accomplished by associating a tax credit with each person, or a “child credit”, for which each person can either receive their tax credit each year, or have a child. In the case where there is one or more children and divorce, or other family splitting, occurs, the same rules in place for taxes currently still apply, only the parent claiming primary custody is the one who loses their tax credits instead of visa versa.
Under the above system this allows for a two parent, two child system (which is my ideal) but does not address those who claim the “right” to have more than two. This could be solved by allowing for those with no children and/ or no plans for children to sell their “child credits” to another family for a lump sum, surrendering their right for the yearly tax credit they would receive instead. Much the same way you can settle a structured settlement for one lump sum, this would allows those with no interest in having children and no, or limited, need for the tax credit to allow for others to have larger families, effectively halting population growth (at least legally), and hopefully reducing it.
As for the violations of this new act of legislation, well there are thousands of couples unable to have children and stuck in the adoption process, sometimes due to lack of available qualified children. By taking away the children of violators of this Act, after it has become law, we could provide for these new families while remaining within the statutes created by the same Act.
It is my belief that we need something in place soon, if not now, to help curtail the overpopulation of our own country. The side effects of overpopulation can already be seen, in previous years with the large number of families’ dependant of state or federal assistance, and more recently with the collapse of the economy and the consequences thereof. I believe this act would create a fair “middle ground” allowing for those who want larger families, rewarding those who choose to be more socially responsible, and assisting those who want to start a family but for biological reasons are having difficulty doing so.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Movie Review: New York, I Love You
At first glance this film may appear to be one of those that has several story lines, and this train of thought may be supported by the fact that a few of the characters are recurring, but that would be a mistake. If you only watch a film for the people you might even start to think that this movie is about nothing at all, or at least only tiny bits of things, this also would be untrue. The fact of the matter is that this movie is about the city of New York itself, and all the named talent and situations that arise are simply ancillary to the city itself.
There are happy notes, and sad notes; events you may consider mundane unless you look more closely,; and even scenes that make you wonder why they are included at all. Piece by piece the various directors, actors, and situation assemble to create a beautiful view of the world within our world that is New York City. I believe you have to watch the film at least twice to pick up all the vagaries and non-verbal remarks present throughout the film.
I’m not one to quote films in review, but one line struck me as important to transcribe here: “ …because this is the capital of everything possible.” I don’t think despite all my flowery words I could describe New York any better, but then I’m not a poet or a screenwriter. That line is present in every scene of this movie despite it not be spoken until about halfway through, it makes you reevaluate what you’ve seen and be a bit more retrospective about everything you see after.
People from all walks of life, all ages, and all manner of faiths are represented in the movie, showing New York City to be what it is, a true melting pot of the world. It shows us that love can come from any place, at any time, and can be refreshed despite the trials it has faced. It shows us the benefit and reward for following our dreams, even those we never achieve.
Definitely a recommend for those that enjoy watching a film more than once and analyzing what it says instead of just what it shows. The DVD even comes with two additional scenes that were removed form the feature release, both of which have their own story and lessons to share. New York, I Love You is indeed a story of the city, and it comes close to capturing all of the city in one sitting, though no movie could ever truly achieve that.
There are happy notes, and sad notes; events you may consider mundane unless you look more closely,; and even scenes that make you wonder why they are included at all. Piece by piece the various directors, actors, and situation assemble to create a beautiful view of the world within our world that is New York City. I believe you have to watch the film at least twice to pick up all the vagaries and non-verbal remarks present throughout the film.
I’m not one to quote films in review, but one line struck me as important to transcribe here: “ …because this is the capital of everything possible.” I don’t think despite all my flowery words I could describe New York any better, but then I’m not a poet or a screenwriter. That line is present in every scene of this movie despite it not be spoken until about halfway through, it makes you reevaluate what you’ve seen and be a bit more retrospective about everything you see after.
People from all walks of life, all ages, and all manner of faiths are represented in the movie, showing New York City to be what it is, a true melting pot of the world. It shows us that love can come from any place, at any time, and can be refreshed despite the trials it has faced. It shows us the benefit and reward for following our dreams, even those we never achieve.
Definitely a recommend for those that enjoy watching a film more than once and analyzing what it says instead of just what it shows. The DVD even comes with two additional scenes that were removed form the feature release, both of which have their own story and lessons to share. New York, I Love You is indeed a story of the city, and it comes close to capturing all of the city in one sitting, though no movie could ever truly achieve that.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Movie Review: The Boys Are Back
To put it simply this is a chick flick for guys, or maybe a dude flick, or maybe a father movie. American media is flooded with romantic films about a boy getting the girl, the girl getting the boy, or some combination thereof. Luckily The Boys Are Back is a BBC Film, so we’ll have no of that unrealistic rubbish.
Based on a true story it documents the progression of a father from tragedy to coping to revelation as he deals with living in the role of a single father after the loss of a woman that, in his mind, cannot be replaced. Besides being based on fact, which I always enjoy in a film, the fact that it concentrates on fatherhood instead of motherhood, as our American female-centric media tends to do, strikes hard.
The lessons learned and trials conquered through the film do much to endear the fatherly spirit and shuck the seeming need for women in our lives. Our culture has created a manifest dependence on women, and endowed them with some sort of mystical powers that we believe somehow create a necessity for women in childrearing. I believe that is a mix of both archaic traditions and inequality.
We’ve been bombarded for years with the rhetoric that a woman can do anything a man can, but no one has seemed to make a move to ensure the opposite is held true by law as well, that a man can do anything a woman can. This movie makes that statement in a well-rounded, heart-warming, and occasionally tear-jerking package.
This film is a new addition to my “must watch” list for my friends and family and as a recent release should be available at most libraries and video stores. For a bit of male empowerment, inspiration, or simply a good movie to watch I recommend The Boys Are Back.
Based on a true story it documents the progression of a father from tragedy to coping to revelation as he deals with living in the role of a single father after the loss of a woman that, in his mind, cannot be replaced. Besides being based on fact, which I always enjoy in a film, the fact that it concentrates on fatherhood instead of motherhood, as our American female-centric media tends to do, strikes hard.
The lessons learned and trials conquered through the film do much to endear the fatherly spirit and shuck the seeming need for women in our lives. Our culture has created a manifest dependence on women, and endowed them with some sort of mystical powers that we believe somehow create a necessity for women in childrearing. I believe that is a mix of both archaic traditions and inequality.
We’ve been bombarded for years with the rhetoric that a woman can do anything a man can, but no one has seemed to make a move to ensure the opposite is held true by law as well, that a man can do anything a woman can. This movie makes that statement in a well-rounded, heart-warming, and occasionally tear-jerking package.
This film is a new addition to my “must watch” list for my friends and family and as a recent release should be available at most libraries and video stores. For a bit of male empowerment, inspiration, or simply a good movie to watch I recommend The Boys Are Back.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Opinion Piece: Why "Races" Ruin Roleplaying
Keeping with my theme of what I believe ruins roleplaying, and not actually in line with some anti-fantasy agenda (just because I don't like it doesn't make it bad, you could take a hint form this Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Democrats) I will be talking about why I believe the ability to select non-human races for a playable character is both unnecessary and in some cases can ruin a roleplaying experience. Among these reasons is the inability to seperate from human identity, inaccuracy of alienation, and the resistence to explore the human mind.
First, the inability to seperate human identity. Let's roleplay a little here: you're creating a character for a game, let's call it Dark Places & Big, Scary Things 2.75 Edition and you've decided to play an elf. No, you're not, you're playing a human playing an elf. You're not an expert of elfology, nor are even the people who wrote the "fluff" for the elven nations for this particular game. They can feed you all the back story they want, but we are creatures of nature as well as nature, and so any sentient being is likely to be as well, so without being raised as an elf, you can not accurately portray one. The same goes for even human characters from that day and age, but at least you're likely to come to the same logical conclusions as another human, for any other race... it's a crap shoot, one stacked against your favor, and you're unlikely to win except twice a day (like a broken watch).
Next, the innacuracy of alienation, humans might not be in charage of the world, but if history has taught us anything it's that humans don't deal well with other species, we don't even deal well with subspecies within our species. So where did we get this horribly unaccurate idea that different races would come together and unite over something like dungeon delving or space exploration for profit and not try to backstab the nonhumans for more than our fair share. We do it to our own race on our own planet, I fairly certain regardless of when or where it will continue to happen so long as we have a scape goat, it's "human nature" after all. The only time humanity will ever truly even have a chance at being united is when we find some alien species to unite against for profit.
Last is the resistence to explore the human mind. We're all different, we all were raised differently and even tiny variations in those childhoods creates a completely disseperate set of goals, asperations, dreams, and motivations. By adding other species into a roleplaying system we are creating a place where exploration of those very base things, the things that should be making up roleplaying, are ineefectual at best, nonexistent at worst. Sure sometimes you need an alien or a demon, it helps dehumanize the enemy and make them easier to face, it also functions as a little cheat so that Game Masters don't have to explain motivations which are otherwise undefinable to a human, but for player, it's simply unnecessary.
So in short, you don't need other races, at least not for players. If they want there character to be good at something, they should have to train in it, if they want an ability, make them get a piece of equipment, or a spell (if you're into that kind of thing), but they don't need to be nonhuman, they're not going to roleplay one accurately anyway, and roleplaying games should be roleplaying centric (see my previous commentary on combat and roleplaying for more). Humans are diverse and varied enough that we don't need nonhumans cluttering up our rulebooks just so the game companies can charge an extra 10 bucks or so.
First, the inability to seperate human identity. Let's roleplay a little here: you're creating a character for a game, let's call it Dark Places & Big, Scary Things 2.75 Edition and you've decided to play an elf. No, you're not, you're playing a human playing an elf. You're not an expert of elfology, nor are even the people who wrote the "fluff" for the elven nations for this particular game. They can feed you all the back story they want, but we are creatures of nature as well as nature, and so any sentient being is likely to be as well, so without being raised as an elf, you can not accurately portray one. The same goes for even human characters from that day and age, but at least you're likely to come to the same logical conclusions as another human, for any other race... it's a crap shoot, one stacked against your favor, and you're unlikely to win except twice a day (like a broken watch).
Next, the innacuracy of alienation, humans might not be in charage of the world, but if history has taught us anything it's that humans don't deal well with other species, we don't even deal well with subspecies within our species. So where did we get this horribly unaccurate idea that different races would come together and unite over something like dungeon delving or space exploration for profit and not try to backstab the nonhumans for more than our fair share. We do it to our own race on our own planet, I fairly certain regardless of when or where it will continue to happen so long as we have a scape goat, it's "human nature" after all. The only time humanity will ever truly even have a chance at being united is when we find some alien species to unite against for profit.
Last is the resistence to explore the human mind. We're all different, we all were raised differently and even tiny variations in those childhoods creates a completely disseperate set of goals, asperations, dreams, and motivations. By adding other species into a roleplaying system we are creating a place where exploration of those very base things, the things that should be making up roleplaying, are ineefectual at best, nonexistent at worst. Sure sometimes you need an alien or a demon, it helps dehumanize the enemy and make them easier to face, it also functions as a little cheat so that Game Masters don't have to explain motivations which are otherwise undefinable to a human, but for player, it's simply unnecessary.
So in short, you don't need other races, at least not for players. If they want there character to be good at something, they should have to train in it, if they want an ability, make them get a piece of equipment, or a spell (if you're into that kind of thing), but they don't need to be nonhuman, they're not going to roleplay one accurately anyway, and roleplaying games should be roleplaying centric (see my previous commentary on combat and roleplaying for more). Humans are diverse and varied enough that we don't need nonhumans cluttering up our rulebooks just so the game companies can charge an extra 10 bucks or so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)