Issue 81 Should College be Free May 21, 2013

I would say no. I have my reasons and they are simple and succinct. Maybe I am biased as I went to a private University (Hofstra), but for me, not everyone is cut out for the college life and we may be putting too much stock in this form of higher learning.

It is a privilege: For one education is a privilege. We have to pay for schools whether it is in the form of payments, or in the form of taxation. Thus, no form of schooling is truly free as you not only pay for yourself and your children, but with respect to government run education; you are paying for everyone else too. To go to school is not a right in any way, shape, or form. Some of you may disagree and I welcome that disagreement. However, take this into account; you can get the same knowledge for free at a library or on the internet. The role of college is not just about educating people, it is about recognizing that you have knowledge in the eyes of your first employer. After that, college becomes nothing but a tool to use to get around in social circles which may let you meet someone who may give you the "good word" and help you move to a higher paying job. In short, college enhances the "who you know factor". Learning on the other hand is a right as you do it every single day in every thing that you do. There is a difference.

Free Colleges: There is no such thing. If you still think that a college that says it is free is actually free, then look at how much you pay in taxes. I don't want to pay for someone’s free education. The idea is repulsive to me on account of the fact that I was once a college student my self. People went to college not to learn (at least a good portion of the people I went to college with) but to party. It was there parents paying for their kids to party for four straight years. As such, I would not hang out with that group as I wanted to devour all forms of knowledge at my finger tips. I studied Persian, Italian, Sign Language, Art history, Political Science (my major), religion, and more. I also read outside the class room just to stay ahead and also challenge the teacher at every turn. I questioned the status quo with boldness and thus I graduated with honors. But that is enough of me tooting my own horn; I’m here to say why we should not support other people’s quest for education (well at least certain people). Fact is that not every one should go to college and there are people who would have made more money if they never went to college in the first place. I know students who just never could fit in to the college class room and so they jumped from college to college getting a free ride off there parent’s money. I do not want to see the same thing happen with free colleges as those people are just free riders getting a good reputation off a college that they could care less about.

Who should get the help?: I know of only one group of people who should go to college and get a free ride. That is people who want to learn and strive academically. They care put there work first and thus their future first. It is not about fun and games at college as fun and games are a privilege saved for when all there work is complete. I am talking about the highly motivated students at all income and class levels that want to rise above themselves and set an example to their brothers and sisters and other members of their family. Here, they are to be idolized and they want to be praised for their hard work. It is these people who have made colleges look good for so long. Truth is however; if these people never went to college and just went into the private sector first, they would still be well off as their motivation is what pulls them to greater heights. The work becomes its own reward.

Conclusion: I don't like free riders. Also, I don't like what colleges have become. They are less about learning and more about recreation (at least here in America). I don't know how it is in other countries, but I would hope they kick students out who do not perform up to a strict set of criteria. In addition, colleges in the U.S. have become corrupt and are part of the crony capitalist culture by snuffing out jobs. They do this by making certain jobs require a college level education which enhances pay for those who manage to get into the field, but leaves people who are just as capable unable to afford the cost and other regulatory hurdles. In essence colleges support the over licensed culture of the job market. Since when do we need a college classroom to study how to make pottery, let alone get a license to make one for sale? The myth of college and free schooling is over. Thanks to the internet and people who fight for us in places like the Supreme Court our freedoms are slowly being returned even as others are confiscated. The power to learn and surpass yourself is in your own hands. What you need to succeed has always been within your grasp. You are motivated to succeed and because of that, you will through effort and the seizing of opportunities that are presented to you rise above your peers. You will separate yourself from the rest of the masses to lead rather than follow. College is a tool to do that, this is true. But ask yourself, is going there for four years worth the cost.

Issue 80 The air powered car May 20, 2013

Yes, as the title says we are going to talk about an air powered car. This is not in any way science fiction and some are already on the market. So let us begin.

What is it?: The air powered car is a vehicle with an engine designed to use compressed air to drive the motor. It works on the same principle as a traditional engine, but the compressed air pushes the pistons rather than a controlled explosion. These engines generally require no lubricants of any sort as the air itself provides a barrier to any sort of friction in the engine. In tests, the air powered car has gone over a 120 miles without fueling and the goal is to have a car that can go from New York to Nevada on a single tank of compressed air.

Safety first: Safety wise, compressed air is volatile. If say a traditional metal tank cracks, it will shatter like a large hand grenade. Engineers have solved this problem by making the air tanks out of carbon fiber which are designed to split open in case of a breach. Also, to address concerns that a breach in the tank will cause the car to launch like a rocket, safety release valves are place on the sides to prevent such an occurrence.

Is it truly fuel free?: Not entirely. You still need a compressor to compress the air in the tank. Filling such a tank could take as long as 2 hours. But, fueling stations will have technology that will solve that issue. Also, on board air compressors can and will be used to help refuel. While fueling stations can compress air off the energy grid, or even use solar and wind power to generate more electricity to compress air, the car will still need fuel. In this case, an 8 gallon gas tank will be used. However, while not 100% fuel free (yet), they produce less pollution than even a hybrid. The fuel will only be used to re-compress the tank and while at higher speeds than 35 miles per hour to generate more power. Future technology may see solar panels, and small wind turbines to charge batteries that will air in replacing the on board fuel supply.

Conclusion: These vehicles are the future if the public catches on to them. They provide a cleaner alternative to gas powered vehicles and are actually lighter and thus more fuel efficient. The only emissions while running on compressed air is well "air". Compressed air also has the ability to cool the environment which will be great for roads in summer as heat can damage them. Can you imagine how much we all can save in road work costs if cars cool the road as they drive preventing them from buckling and deteriorating due to heat? Also, as the air powered car is at most a ton in weight, this will provide less wear on the roads as well. There is another source of potential savings. Costs at the pump impact food prices and the price of all other goods as well. There will be trucks powered by air on the cheap. While normal trucks may need over $100 in fuel, an air powered version may on spend about $20 (based on the estimate that you only need $2 to fill up a passenger version). This will mean the price of goods will decrease dramatically. Welcome to a cleaner future where air, the most abundant resource on earth can be used to power your car for less than $2 worth of electricity.

To find out more check out the How Stuff Works web site here :
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/air-car.htm

Issue 79 Stem Cells: A god send? May 17, 2013

Stem cells are the basic building block from which all our cells develop to become our organs, bones, etc. There are many different varieties of stem cells with embryonic being the most controversial. It has already been proven that all stem cells where ever they are derived work to help improve and heal our physical condition. So is this the best thing to happen to medicine since penicillin?

Yes it is: Stem cells are being experimented with to help heal heart disease, cure cancers and even repair and correct physical and mental conditions. In the show Beyond Tomorrow that was airing on the Science Channel, they injected healthy stem cells from one part of an elderly gentleman’s heart into the part of his heart that was failing. The result was that the mans heart was repaired by those stem cells and was shown to actually make the part of the heart younger. Well not necessarily younger, but health wise it was younger. This is just the beginning.

Stem cells from other animals: Some stem cells don't come from the human body. All animals have them and they are being experimented with too. In the case of the military they are making a kind of dust from pig stem cells. They use this dust by sprinkling it on the stubs of amputees to stimulate the human bodies own stem cells to grow the limb back. So far there has been some progress as some of the soldiers limbs have started growing back, albeit slowly and only in cases of small limbs like fingers. The technology is still developing but there is a hope that we will soon be able to grow peoples limbs back completely.

The types of stem cells: There are stem cells that already exist in the human body. They exist in our blood stream, in our organs, and even in our bones. With these stem cells, it is simply a matter of re-activating them to help heal the sick. As aforementioned, there are animals with stem cells that can be of use to us. These will be used to make other sorts of medicines to allow our bodies to heal themselves, and eventually help to heal our pets. Another type of stem cell is in the umbilical cord. This type exists in umbilical fluid and has greater potential to help heal more serious diseases like Parkinson’s and cancers, at least if our own dormant stem cells prove to be not up to the task.

The most controversial is embryonic. These stem cells exist in undeveloped babies. These are believed to have the greatest potential to save lives, but there is one problem. You will have to kill the unborn child in the fetal stage to harvest the cells. Such a practice is currently outlawed in the U.S. save Jonathon Swifts Modest Proposal becoming a reality. I do not support the research using the unborn stem cells for both moral and ethical reasons as I can see the unborn as nothing but a human life. As such, I will not sacrifice one life for another’s in this scenario.

Conclusion: The discovery and use of stem cells is fantastic. It will allow us to move away from potent and potentially harmful medications and procedures that cause more stress to the body. So this truly is a God send to the medical community and to the world. Now we just have to explore the possibilities.

Issue 78 Should we play God?: extinct species May 16, 2013

I'm sure you have heard about or even read the article in National Geographic about bringing extinct species back from the grave. Most of the animals they intend on bringing back are birds, but they also want to see if they can bring back a mastodon, a woolly mammoth and a saber tooth tiger. I question if we should actually bring these amazing animals back to the world?

Worry number 1: These animals died out within the last couple of thousand of years (they can't bring back dinosaurs due to their DNA being un-recoverable). Some were hunted to extinction while others died due to environmental changes. If we choose to bring these animals back are we dooming them to death once again? Think about it. We are not 100% sure as to why certain species of animals died out. They think the mastodon can come back because the plant life in the arctic tundra is coming back to what it is believed it was like those hundreds of years ago. But, scientists cannot be sure. By breading these animals we could end up poisoning them with current plants and animal life. Morally thinking, I advise against any attempt to release these animals into the wild unless it is provable that they can live and flourish outside a lab.

Worry number 2: Another issue is what happens to the animals that took there place in the wild once they became extinct. The animal kingdom is full of niche animal species. Each one thriving in that role until natural selection occurs once again, such as favoring shorter winged birds over longer winged birds in an urban environment (it allows them to better avoid being hit bay cars). We may regain one species of animal, just to kill off another species through competition with the animal brought back. This is another issue that will have to be taken into account.

The process: What they intend to bring back are not exactly the original animal that went extinct. What is being brought into the world is a representation of the animal that went extinct. To bring such creatures back, scientist map the genome of the extinct animal from DNA that has been recovered. From there, they fill in the missing pieces of DNA with what they believe to be accurate representations of the original animal. From this point the same process used in cloning takes place. They manipulate the eggs of an animal whose DNA is as close a match as possible (Elephant to mastodon for example) and substitute the altered DNA parts with the originals. The result is a hybrid of the original animal and the extinct species. At this point the process is repeated until the animal looks like the extinct species they wanted to bring back. Problem, the animal is not necessarily the extinct species; they are just making another animal look like it. In addition, you cannot study it as the extinct species as we are not 100% sure how the original behaves, thus you are just studying a man made representation and the ways they adapt to the environment they are in (assuming they live).

Conclusion: I know I sound critical, and that is because I am. There is no way that I don't think it is cool that these new versions of extinct species could walk the earth, but morally I'm troubled. Should we bring such animals back, just to see them die, or cause other animals to die as well? Conservation efforts don't exactly work out as planned. Some animals died out anyway, while others became too successful and have to be hunted regularly to avoid over population. In this instance, I would just use this science to test if it is possible to bring animals back. I would not release them out in the wild, but rather seek to design animals that could exist as domesticated versions in zoos. We could create more versions of life stock for leather, and meat to help end world hunger. Or we can even use the technology to aid in our government's mission to colonize Mars (you know they want the credit) by creating animals that can survive the harsh conditions. There will be many issues with this technology and the creations it produces as the animals must survive here on earth, exposed to many of the same diseases that may have wiped out there originals. Can we play God? Yes, but it is not exactly the most advisable thing to do (think the movie Planet of the Apes and the lesson it was trying to impart).

Issue 77 Tenure: Is it really needed? May 15, 2013

                    

  Tenure was designed as a way to protect teachers from being fired for expressing their opinions.  That is what it was supposed to do in summary.  It was originally conceived to protect college professors from being fired for discussing controversial topics, fill in controversial topic here.  Tenure in college was awarded to college professors after many years and under very strict standards with most professors never getting tenured.  Today is different.  Every teacher gets tenure through contract for a certain number of years of service and approval by some official in the education bureaucracy.  This even includes administrators as well.  The very same administrators who make up the education bureaucracy that creates massive redundancies and red tape.  Overall what is up with such a policy that just allows everybody to get job security even from the most heinous of infractions?

  Why the wall?:  That is right; I am asking why do they get a wall against being fired? It is impossible to get ride of bad teachers who are then placed in a firing process which could take years to be rid of them whilst they continue being paid.  They sit in places like New York States “rubber rooms” where they sit around all day raking in or tax dollars that are meant for educating America’s children. Tenure was not intended to protect bad teachers, but unfortunately it does.  It was also not intended to have good non-tenured teachers fired in their place.  Gives new meaning to last hired, first fired.

 Shouldn't it be a reward?:  What I don’t get is why tenure is necessary at all.  Should it not be rewarded like it used to be at colleges where who receives tenure is so strict that it is almost impossible to get.  Primary and secondary education teachers don’t even need tenure in the first place for they should not be talking about controversial topics to young students in the first place.  Not to mention that tenure gives them the license to turn their classroom into a bully pulpit to advocate certain ideologies to young impressionable children.  Other teachers may become lazy due to the job security tenure provides.  School officials are not teachers, so why have it for them even if they might have used to be teachers themselves.  Well I can only think that in the case of administrators having tenure is that it allows them to be whistle blowers on corruption, but we have whistle blower laws for that.  Let’s face it; a poor performing teacher should be fired.  It does not matter if that teacher is popular; popularity is no excuse for a lack of performance.

Conclusion:  Tenure belongs in college with strict requirements, not primary and secondary education where the only cheep option to get rid of a bad teacher is to transfer them and hope the new teacher is better than the last one.  It is so hard to fire a teacher, so expensive, that they transfer them hoping that the swap with the other school gives them a better teacher than the last.  The school does not want to pay bed teachers to sit for years while they go through the firing process.  It is hard to believe they transfer teachers because it’s cheaper.  A risk that schools take hoping that they did not sign a death warrant for the education of the class the new teacher will be teaching.  It is time to make schools cheaper, improve teacher quality by cutting off the minority bad teacher’s free ride.  Let us eliminate tenure, so we do not end up sending America’s children into a classroom that will negatively impact their future.

Issue 76 Education: Attacking the main problem May 14, 2013

  The main problem with education in the United States is social promotion.  Social promotion moves children up a grade even if they are not academically capable of understanding the material at the higher grade level.  Thus, the student is unprepared to meet the new challenges and this begins spirals until the student graduates with them leaving school incapable of meeting society’s educational demands.

 Its original purpose:  Social promotions purpose was to speed students through school and to prevent children from being left back.  It was felt that by doing this that these students would not suffer ridicule from their peers, therefore preserving their self-esteem.  Problem is it leaves students unprepared, sometimes dangerously so, to enter the working world.  Not to mention how embarrassing it is for some of these socially promoted students not even knowing how to read.

 Kill the idea:  A real change for education would be the abolishment of this ridiculous idea that robs children of a successful career which is always founded on a good education.  In other words, the more educated you are the higher paying job you can achieve.  Let’s face it; employers want educated workers who innovate to improve business, not mindless drones.  Look at the State of Florida; they along with several other States got rid of both social promotion and tenure.  As a result within ten years grades improved significantly. 

 Conclusion:  It is time to end this stupidity of protecting a student’s self-esteem at the expense of their education and future.  Hold students back if they are not academically prepared to meet the standards that are set for success.  End social promotion now.

Issue 75 Education: correcting some errors May 13, 2013

 We have all heard the quote “The foundation of every State is the education of its youth.”  Well duh, a dumb nation cannot progress.  A dumb nation means we cannot compete intellectually with other nations because jobs are created by smart people who invest their income wisely.  International businesses not only look at how cheep it is for it to establish itself and produce its products, but also the education of workers because smart labor equals skilled labor equals profits.  We are in a race for the most highly skilled workers on the planet, an education arms race if you will.  Problem, our education system has some major malfunctions inhibiting our, your, Americas future, from getting the best quality education.

The first problem is when school elections are held:  Have you noticed that school elections are not held on the same day as a general election, the very same general election where we as citizens cast our vote for our President, and federal, State and local representatives?  The reason is because the school boards want a lower voter turnout.  Some are thinking why the heck would they want a lower turnout?  Simple, with less people voting, officials are more likely to be elected or re-elected.  Budgets are almost guaranteed to pass even if that budget is flawed, or clearly does nothing to enhance the education of the students and line the pockets of the education bureaucracy.  In other words, the members of the education bureaucracy only have to be responsible to the segment of the community who actually gets out and votes and not the entire community. 

 Next is the problem with the Lemons:  No, not the fruit or the cars, I mean bad teachers.  Usually, these bad teachers can’t be fired due to tenure or contract, so schools have an alternative solution.  They trade off bad teachers with other schools hoping the newer one was better than the last.  This of course means that the new teacher can be as bad as or worse than the one traded away.  Other teachers go into what the people of New York State call rubber rooms.  This is where bad teachers go while they wait for there hearings to take place, all the while getting paid to do nothing.  Some might say remove tenure, which is something I am in favor of, but here I will discuss alternatives.  In the case of the rubber rooms, a teacher who is not in the classroom teaching should not be paid.  That’s right, if your not working you should not be paid and the fear of being placed into one of these rubber rooms will put the fear of God into that select minority of bad teachers.  This also eliminates the need to trade off bad teachers because they can simply threaten to send poor performing teachers, and those who commit worse acts than failing their students, into a rubber room.  Thus, the number of bad teachers should drop.

Another Approach:  An alternative that can be combined with the first is to make tenure renewable.  In other words it will expire after a certain period of time and teachers’ records will be used to justify its renewal.  This is a very simple solution, because their application for renewal may be denied and that bad teacher will then be let go.  I suggest every five to eight years for a renewal of tenure.  I chose these numbers because it’s long enough to evaluate a teachers performance under “safe” circumstances and at the same time give the teacher the ability to enjoy the original intention of tenure, the freedom to discuss points of view in the classroom.

But, what happens to the bad teachers who do manage to be fired.  Why they can simply get another teaching job.  Your saying how does that work aren’t you?  Well, it’s because unlike the majority of professions, teacher’s records are sealed.  The new employer can’t look into the reason why the teacher no longer has their original teaching job, or even the fact that they were fired.  So why is it that a teacher has their records sealed and not other professions?  Why inhibit employers in schools from insuring that America’s children are getting the best of the best?

This leads me to another question: Why are we only giving special attention to the best students?  This is due to the track system which was developed during the industrialization of America.  The original intent was to give the top performers in schools the most attention because they were perceived as the next generation of politicians and lawyers.  The next group was expected to be accountants, and secretaries who aid the top group while the final group (the majority) was to be factory workers and farmers.  This system has always worked by giving attention to students based on performance.  However, performance is based on test scores that are factored in with other factors which inflate grades like behavior.  So good students academically are given less attention because of poor behavior such as obedience or the number of times they raise their hand while others are given higher grades because they might behave better than the rest of the class.  This is not fair and nor is it equal treatment.  This is biased education from a bygone era.  The track system must end for all students who must all be held to the same standards.  They must be given the exact attention they need to succeed and above all treated like the next Albert Einstein. 

 We are still left with inflated grades based on behavior though.  So make academic performance and behavior two separate grades.  Academic performance and behavior do not correlate which is why grades get inflated or even deflated, so there is no reason to not make this change for teachers are already accounting for a student’s behavior.  This will make grading fair and equitable and allow both parents and teachers to identify what areas a student is week in whether it is academically, respecting others, group work, attention to detail, all of which is important in the working world   

 Conclusion: These are some simple fixes, though some are harder to achieve than others i.e. elections and tenure.  We can make America’s system of education the best in the world and a model for all to follow.  Our 50 States, each with their own separate and independent education systems, are competing to be the best.  Each State is in an education arms race with each other and the rest of the world, each a powerful force in education reform.