HACC's Open Admission: GREAT!

HACC has an open admissions policy. Anyone that desires an education can receive one here barring only those without a G.E.D. or high school diploma. This is a very good policy. It benefits young people that did not yet take education seriously as well as non-traditional returning adults. There are at least three reasons the HACC open admissions policy is a good policy.
The first reason it is a good policy is second chances. Many people in high school do not yet take an education seriously. Many people that go to top colleges do not yet take education seriously. These people often find themselves failing out within the first year of college. In more serious situations these people may try again at a college education and again fail. Schools such as HACC give these people another opportunity. I myself was one of those people. I attended West Virginia University on a full scholarship and did terribly. I am ready now to take my education more seriously. HACC through their open admissions policy gives me that chance.
The second reason that HACC’s open admissions policy is a good policy is non-traditional students. Older adults often find that they want to take a new career path. These adults do not fit into the realm of the “normal” acceptable college students. They often have never taken an SAT or any other standardized tests. They have very little to show academically to put themselves into a favorable light. HACC’s open admissions policy gives these adults an opportunity to begin the path to higher education.
The third reason that HACC’s open admissions policy is a good policy is also a reason for non-traditional students. There are many people that attend HACC that would like to pick up a skill or two. They do not want to pursue a career. They are not interested in grade point averages or degree requirements. These people most likely just want to acquire a skill-such as typing or welding. There should be nothing to keep these non-traditional students from pursuing these interests. That is why an open admissions policy is great for these students.
HACC’s open admissions policy is not liked by everyone. There are several reasons these people list when asked why they do not approve. One reason is that it dramatically increases the failure rates. Another reason people are against HACC’s open admissions policy is that it wastes government money that is given to these students. That money could be given to students that are more likely to succeed. A reason that impacts students is that students who are not prepared for college slow down an entire classroom. They disrupt the learning process for students that are college material.
I believe that all of these reasons are valid. However, I think that is why there are two-year colleges and four-year universities. We should save all these reasons that are against open admissions for the four-year universities. They should be completely disregarded for a two-year institution such as HACC. HACC is for the non-traditional and the second-chances. We should keep our open admissions policy.

An Argument Against Cell Phones

I believe that cell phones are the worst invention ever. I know people may argue they are great for emergencies, but that benefit does not outweigh the downfalls of cell phones.

Before cell phones were created, your parents did not feel as if they had electronic leashes for you. You could stay out later and explain it away to your parents: "oh we had a flat tire that's why we were late." Now if you tried to do that, your parents' response of course is, "why didn't you cal me to tell me that?" Also, your spouses always know where you are. You can't sneak away to the spa for your own personal downtime. Your spouse would ask, "why weren't you anwering your cell phone?" In addition to these reasons, which I will call the electronic leash reasons, there are others.

How many breakfasts, lunches, and dinners out have you had ruined by others cell phone conversations. I have had many. Not just other people in the restaurant, but people in my own party have ruined our good time by constantly texting, beeping, ringing, and squawking into their cell phone as loud as possible. It is downright rude. Or at least it used to be. Now, it's normal.

The last reason cell phones are the worst invention ever is a fatal one. People believe that they drive just fine while texting and calling. It has been proven that people texting are more dangerous than the neighborhood drunk behind the wheel. In studies, it has been shown than less than one percent of the population can actually multi-task. How can you dial Jennifer, while putting on your turn signal while yelling at your kids in the back to stop? You can't! You wreck and you die or you kill others and die. It's a terrible thing.

This is why I put forth the idea of abolishing cell phones. Or at least getting rid of all the annoying people that misuse them.

Colleges or Apprenticeships

I think it is ridiculous that all of us are going to attend school for four years and emerge with nothing. Wait! You say, we will have our degrees. Yes, yes, but what does that really mean? For most of us outside of specialized majors such as nursing or engineering, it means we have no clue how to actually do our jobs. The only inkling we will have will come from a source outside of school: internships. Why do we have to attend these institutions then to be able to do our jobs? Colleges are just a big business. They are interested in money. They keep you in school for four years so that they can rack up your bill. The schools say it is to make you a well-rounded individual. WRONG! It is so you have to spend more money to take a bunch of required classes that are not even a part of your major. These are called general education classes and they generally teach you nothing educating. The obvious solution to this is to do away with the requirement of colleges for majors that would be much better suited to apprenticeships. We should revive the good old days of apprenticing to someone. The advantage of this is that you learn your job every day. You don’t learn equations you’ll never use or macroeconomics. You actually do what you will do by yourself eventually. That makes a lot more sense than throwing money down the college-fund pit.

Drug Testing and Welfare

If you are receiving money from the government for any reason outside of veterans benefits- you should be drug tested. The reasons I am talking about fall under the category of welfare. People should not be allowed to receive money earned by others if they are using any or all of that money to purchase drugs. It’s not fair. The money is supposed to be used for groceries, diapers, rent payments- not blunts and weed and crack. The money the government dispenses as welfare was earned by taxpaying citizens. The only people that should be allowed to spend their own money on drugs are people that earned it fair and square (I’m not promoting the use of drugs). I worked in Turkey Hill last semester. People would come into the store with three or four kids. The kids would ask for candy or chips. The parents would say no. They would then proceed to use their cash benefits to buy items such as blunts. Do you think these people just wanted to enjoy a good cigar? I most definitely don’t. I especially don’t believe that was the purpose when their pupils were dilated to the size of saucers. That is why I think welfare recipients should be drug tested. If you have the money to purchase drugs, then you certainly don’t need more of my money paid through taxes to purchase more drugs. Does anyone have any objections to that? I’d really like to hear them if you do.

In Absence of Competition

Options are decreased in absence of competition. What does this mean? If Giant (hypothetically speaking), the grocery store, has no competition, it does not need to lower its prices. When Giant is the only grocery store/food source we have, Giant can make all decisions about pricing-regardless of what is "reasonable." Giant does not need to worry about quality either. We have no choice, but Giant. It no longer matters if the bathrooms are clean or the produce is good. Giant is the only option. We have to eat Giant's produce.

That is a short explanation of why monopolies don't work. Why am I explaining why monopolies don't work? Monopolies are synonymous with socialism. Socialism promotes one owner- the government. The government monopolizes all business interests. Of course, this is done in the name of "the people." What does this lead to? Decreased options, terrible products, and no choice but to suck it up. If we all own the company and will receive the produce regardless of the quality of our work- we won't work. If we have no interest in keeping our job, because as a citizen we are guaranteed our job we will not work. If there is no competition, there is no incentive to be better- there is only one option anyways.

That is why everyone in the U.S.S.R. ate crappy food all the time, bought crappy clothes, and did crappy work. They only had crappy food as a choice, crappy clothes as a choice, and regardless of the quality of the work they did they were still getting paid the same "monopoly" money the next schmuck was.

Do you want to be a schmuck? Of course you don't- which is why you don't want to be a socialist either.

Humans have toes

I think that human feet are incredibly unique among most species. A primate's feet are comparable, but not exactly the same. I propose an argument about feet.

Premise 1: Humans have human feet.
Premise 2: "Fetuses" have human feet at ten weeks after conception.
Therefore: Fetuses are human.

We can establish than that abortion, at least at ten weeks after conception is murder. How can we establish that?

Premise 1: Killing another human is murder.
Premise 2: A ten-week old fetus is a human.
Therefore: Killing a ten-week old fetus is murder.

Therefore, regardless of if it is moral or ethical, it should be considered a crime under our penal code to abort a "fetus" at ten weeks after conception. We can say at ten weeks after conception, or when the fetus has developed "human feet." If an animal has human feet, it must be human.

In conclusion, a fetus is most definitely human at ten weeks after conception, and it is murder to kill it.

Social Welfare Programs

Where does the idea that expanding social welfare programs would help Americans come from? Why do people believe that social welfare should be a priority for the American government? The original founders of our great democratic nation stated that we had certain inalienable rights. The rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They did not believe it was the governments role to give us that happiness in the form of a monthly check.

If the government gives people money, people will not have to work.
If people do not work, the government will run out of money.
If the government gives people money, the government will run out of money.

What does that mean? That means that social welfare programs that continue to grow are not sustainable. There has to be motivation to work. If you are given things, you will not work for them!! It is also unfair to the people that are working. Those are the people that are paying for the socialist programs.
1) Why should hard working Americans be paying the way for others? 2) Why shouldn't they instead be allowed to invest their money as they see fit? 3) Where did this sense of entitlement come from? 4) Why do Americans believe that expanded welfare is an answer to a problem-any problem?
Answers: 1 and 2) People that generate profit shouldn't pay the way for others. They should be allowed to utilize that profit to create more profit! This is the way that wealth is generated, jobs are created, and economies are boosted. 3) It came from a liberal agenda that encourages people to believe that those who generate wealth are inherently bad. Who is most susceptible to this agenda? Young people that have had most of their possessions given to them by their parents. The same parents that have rescued them from every other problem they have ever had. People who have become indoctrinated into this liberal quagmire really believe that you, me, and the government owe them something. They should be given everything. Grades, cars, homes, jobs, and health insurance. 4) Most Americans don't believe expanded social welfare programs are the answer to our ever-increasing debt. The amount of Americans that do believe this is quickly shrinking. Middle-class working citizens no longer want to foot the bill for a bunch of lazy people that want to live off of tax-payers' money. Expanding social welfare programs does not help anyone except those who will never try to help themselves.