College graduates should mind their manners

By Arianne Custer 
Published: May 16, 2011 for the Daily Titan


There used to be a day when parents found it unacceptable for their children to behave unruly in front of others at the dinner table. In fact, it was an etiquette taboo not to have table manners. A child was to follow certain inherent rules in front of family, friends, dinner guests and even strangers.

Dinner at home, just a few generations ago, used to go like this. First you would wash your hands and then set the table with actual silverware and dinner plates – usually without even being asked – simply because your mother told you it was dinner time.

Read the rest of the story HERE.

Call for action at Cal State Fullerton

On behalf of the editorial staff of the Fullerton Sentinel, we would like to offer our support for higher education. Many of our contributors are teachers and students who understand the challenges before you because we are living through them.


The Fullerton Sentinel does not support the Declaration to Defend Public education because, among other reasons, it does not hold anyone accountable.

That said, please consider the following message from the Fullerton Sentinel to the CSUF students at tonight's rally:

California State University at Fullerton has been mismanaged for decades. Now in the midst of an economic depression we see the results of poor financial planning and what it is like to live hand to mouth.

Whether it is the faculty early retirement program which causes a significant burden on the coffers or poor leadership from the president, CSUF students are at the epicenter of a major institutional shakeup.

Each of you are the hope of tomorrow. You are the leaders of tomorrow but your state needs you today. It is time to learn about the CSU budget. Its time to learn about CSU funding. Its time for you to take all of your knowledge and ambition to do fix this broken university system.

Declarations do not change state or university budgets. Pounding your fists will not stop the incessant waste of your tuition to pay for "conferences" for administrators. You must root out and embarrass the university's leadership to affect meaningful and lasting change. You must become smarter than they are and a PhD will not grant you the common sense you will need to wage a battle over budgetary policies.

The Fullerton Sentinel extends to ALL CSU students an opportunity for insightful change instead of blind change.

Only one question remains, who among you has the fortitude and character to lead the charge of higher education?

Show us that leader.

The Fullerton Sentinel

Does being attractive get you an A?

By Jessica Druck
Published: March 21, 2011

Looking back on high school, I’m sure you can easily recall the popular, good-looking kids making you feel inadequate with their coiffed hair, cool clothes, piercing eyes and the use of words you thought sounded stupid but made everyone worship them (see: senior year superlatives).


You probably also recall that the popular, good-looking students proved looks got you further in life (see: insecurity problems).


Now that you’re in college, you wonder to yourself whether or not wearing cool clothes, smooth talking your way through Intro to American Studies and having impeccable hair will get you free tutoring like that cheerleader in senior year math.


Do good-looking people have it easier in school? No. Maybe in high school or the work force—you know, if you’re into standing in front of Abercrombie & Fitch with your shirt off while young girls take Polaroids with you—but not in college.


In fact, being attractive may actually deter your success, according to research done by psychologist Maria Agthe, who found you can be too good looking for your own good.


Being beautiful may cause you to lose opportunities in jobs, scholarships and maybe even promotions, depending on the gender and attractiveness of your evaluator.


Her research showed that attractive women were more closely evaluated by the same sex, which sometimes led to negative ratings even if they were extremely qualified.


The same went for men, but when attractive women and men were evaluated by the opposite sex, their approval ratings were higher.


She concluded that working in an environment where someone is qualified, intelligent and better looking made others who were less attractive feel inadequate, making some employers turn away applicants.


This study just gave me terrible flashbacks of high school. How many times did I not want cheerleader Christy on my dodgeball team (knowing all the boys would aim the ball at me and everyone else but not her because God forbid the girl in tiny shorts with hair bouncing about got out)?


An argument against this is a study performed by Michael T. French of the University of Miami, who researched high school students saying attractiveness, personality and grooming affected GPA in grades k through eight, as well as college.


If students took care of themselves—groomed, dressed well and had upbeat personalities—the study showed attractive people eventually got paid more. But why?


Well, he proved that throughout years of education, those who took care of themselves and presented themselves in a more put-together manner than those who didn’t got more rewarding feedback and attention from teachers, making them more confident when they applied their education to the workforce.


So does this study mean if you stop showing up to class in sweats, put on mascara or spray on some Axe, you’ll get rewarding attention from your teacher, eventually resulting in higher pay?


I show up to school put-together; I’m not calling myself Cindy Crawford, but I brush my teeth, I don’t have dirt on my face and I’d like to think I look like a normal, functioning member of society.


But I have yet to receive special attention or have it easier than someone who may be considered more or less attractive. The only special attention I’ve seen attractive students receive is unnecessary gawking from other students like me who drift into a dreamlike coma about the guy next to me who’s as beautiful as Ryan Gosling.


Dressing well, taking care of yourself and presenting yourself maturely does result in feeling more confident, but it won’t change an F to an A.


Maybe it will help you in the long run like French’s study concludes but then again, you might be screwed if your evaluator is the same sex and you’re too good looking.

Modern Romance

by Jessica Druck
(JessicaDruck.com)

When I say the term "modern romance" it sounds like some innovative new way of loving each other, right? Innovative in an energy-efficient-car, Peter Frampton introducing that talk box guitar sound, sort of way; too bad it's not.

Too bad it’s what our society has become: a lazy and frightened generation that likes to hide behind text messages and online profiles making us lose our ability to really communicate.

I remember the days before text messaging when most guys called to talk or ask you to … well, I would have been 13, so that meant asking me to come over after school, watch MTV Beach House and sip on Capri Suns while his mom hovered and watched Oprah on her mini TV in the kitchen. Ah, young love.

Romance was lost somewhere between MySpace and iPhones. We live in an instant gratification society that has made us emotionally shallow at times.

With emailing, texting and social networking, we’re lucky to be able to keep in touch so easily but we’re also kind of at risk of losing touch with each other.

Our generation has become so interpersonal that we can’t even talk to each other during phone sex, we sext. See my point people? Is it that bad to communicate?
So what is romance anymore, liking someone's status update and sending them electronic flowers? Of course, sending sweet nothings using our wonderful technology is fun and convenient--I am not going to totally knock it--but it diminishes what’s really important: getting to know each other.

What do we really know about each other anymore, what we all like and are fans of on Facebook? We practically know everything about a person before dating them anyway thanks to social networks. What fun is that? What do you talk about when you go to dinner, how many sugar packets are on the table?

I find it so refreshing when I meet someone who isn’t into Facebook or Twitter. I know very few men (and by few, I can hardly count them on one hand) who value old fashioned ways and I totally commend them for it.

Texting and networking are crutches; we use them to conduct the perfect sentence to that certain someone but in reality, you don’t have a thesaurus and time to think up witty conundrums in real life when you’re with that person.

The bottom line is, if you really like someone, get offline and be with them. I’m not saying you have to go buy a box of chocolate covered strawberries (this goes both ways ladies) but "if you’re not willing to sound stupid, you don’t deserve to be in love."

Daily Titan: College campuses should not integrate men and women in dorm rooms

By Jessica Druck
Published: February 23, 2011

Have you ever seen an episode of The Real World? You know, that show on MTV where seven strangers move to a city they’re new to, share a seven-bed apartment, possibly form romantic relationships (or just hook up), ally together and gang up on others and the couple breaks up seven times in a four month span, all while trying to get along as a house because no one knows anyone else?

Add a school mascot, midterms and Top Ramen, and you have a parent’s worst nightmare of a coed dorm. Of course, MTV’s The Real World is a rather embellished depiction of what can really be found in a coed dorm.

I can’t speak for all schools, but they are a bad idea.

Cal State Fullerton does not offer coed dorms, but according to an article in the Los Angeles Times, as of March 2010, about 50 colleges in the U.S.—some of which are Ivy League—are permitting mixed-gender dorm rooms to undergraduate students.

Freshmen and sophomores—at least most of them—are not mature enough to live with the opposite sex. Hell, some 30-year-olds aren’t even mature enough.

Promiscuity is huge today; just turn on the CW and watch an episode of 90210 (I did this for research). Look at what those teenagers are doing and they are in high school.

Sexual harassment can be a problem as well. I’m not saying everyone is vulgar, but I am saying that some are more sensitive to jokes which can be taken the wrong way, leading to harassment.

Speaking of harassment, while many people may feel completely comfortable walking around exposed, some may feel displeased by having to find your bare body on the couch watching TV. That alone can be some form of harassment.

Some colleges, like CSUF, offer coed floors as opposed to just dorms and even that might be overbearing for students.

Seeing someone with no shirt can be offensive. It may be religious or personal values, but those values should be respected.

And when it comes to values, what do young adults who moved out for the first time really cherish?

Freedom: the freedom to leave dirty socks on the floor, not do the dishes and date whomever they want, even if that includes rooming with their girlfriend or dating their roommate.

If breaking up is the least of your worries, come talk to me after you have to see him or her every morning while eating your Captain Crunch. Talk about awkward.

Freshman year is stressful. At 18 and 19, it’s hard enough to be yourself, so your living arrangement should be comfortable.

College campuses need to focus on what is really necessary for students, and coed dorms aren’t.

Politicians and their religious beliefs

By Ally Bordas
For the Daily Titan
Published: October 21, 2010

When you step into a position of power, you have to be prepared to lay your life out on a silver platter for others to observe and pick apart. Whether or not you have Constitutional rights, the First Amendment is a bitch and American citizens are greedily awaiting to hear about the latest political scandal.

Just look at celebrities: protection of privacy? I think not.

“That fact that an atheist couldn’t get elected dog-catcher in the United States of America is no secret,” stated writer Jonathan Malesic, ABC Religion and Ethics article.

If politicians ran around with their religious beliefs stamped across their forehead, they would be no closer to gaining a seat in the Senate as Mike the “Situation” from Jersey Shore is. Look at Christine O’Donnell, she admitted to being a witch at one point in her life and now she is constantly mocked for it. I mean who can take a reformed witch seriously? Save it for Halloween.

“Most voters (70 percent) want the president to be a person of faith. But half of the electorate expresses unease with politicians, presidential contenders and others, who talk too much about their religious beliefs,” according to an article written by the Research Center for the People and the Press.

I think it’s true – it would be awkward to have a hardcore preacher waltzing into the Senate trying to heal you.

Everyone in the United States has the right to express their religion in their own personal or public way. But religion always seems to be a touchy subject with people: Muslims get profiled as terrorists (Islamophobia), born-again Christians speak in tongues, Scientologists are secretly “crazy,” Catholics sit on their pedestals, warlocks and wiccans are just emo people on drugs and Rastafarians are, obviously, lovers of the natural herb. So do politicians really want to have to fight off these religious stereotypes every single time they step into the spotlight? I don’t think so.

But then again, I would want to know if the president, for example, is secretly worshipping the devil at night. Just like I would want to know if the first lady was a Bible hugger. Since I am an American citizen with kick-ass First Amendment rights, I feel like I should have the right to know something about politicians and their religious beliefs. No Christine O’Donnell, I do not want to hear about your first date to a satanical bloodbath or whatever creepy ceremony you so willingly took part in (yes, I am aware of the fact that the media most likely blows all of this out of proportion).

Just like we have our First Amendment rights as boring average citizens, I guess I cannot deny the fact that our politicians have their rights too. The Constitution states “no religious test shall be imposed on any public official,” according to an article written by Debate the Opposing Views. So, technically, we may never know which god or devil any of our politicians may secretly worship (they can just lie to us).

What I want to know from religious politicians is what role will faith play during his or her job as a national politician. What are the boundaries between government and religion? Since religion can dominate a person’s psyche and lifestyle, I think it is only fair we have these questions answered.

Debate the Opposing Views also told readers to take a closer look at past politicians to see how fanatical they are about their religion. “James Watt, President Reagan’s first Secretary of the Interior, told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, ‘after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.” See, obsessed with his religion.

And also what about Bush? Does anyone remember Bush stating that the reason he was president was because God appointed him? I mean he told America that God wanted him and only him. Talk about narcissistic.

All I am saying is that we have to be careful. We do not want our politicians being affected by their religious beliefs to the point that they forget how our country was really formed: by revolution, war and oppression (with a hint of faith). Religion comes second to our Constitution. And most importantly, Debate the Opposing Views reminds us to remember that our politicians “don’t drop their religious beliefs at the White House door.”

Early Start Program

By Ally Bordas
For the Daily Titan
Published: February 08, 2011

In early 2010, the CSU Board of Trustees voted that all 23 CSU campuses must create and implement new programs in remedial English and math. CSU campuses were given until Nov. 19, 2010, to come up with an individual strategy in accordance to the needs of their universities.

These mandatory early start plans will go into full effect by summer 2012 with complete implementation by summer 2014 after the Chancellor’s Office reviews each CSU program, according to the Access and Equity Group.

Ed Trotter, Cal State Fullerton’s acting associate vice president for CSUF undergraduate programs; Javier Ramirez, M.F.A, student retention services to CSUF; Kimberly King, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology at Cal State University Los Angeles; and Steve Teixeira, Academic Professionals of California for the CSU, came together for a discussion on Friday, Dec. 3, to discuss the details of the Mandatory Early Start Program.

The forum was called “Advocating for Educational Access, Quality and Equity Session,” and the main focus was to educate all attendees on the positives and negatives of the Mandatory Early Start Program, MESP.

The office signed an Executive Order that establishes “a program for CSU admitted freshmen who have not demonstrated proficiency in mathematics and/or English as established by the CSU faculty.” The order states, “as of summer 2012, incoming freshman who have not demonstrated proficiency in English and/or mathematics will be required to begin remediation prior to the term for which they have been admitted.”

According to a PowerPoint presentation put together from reports written by the California Faculty Association, UCLA Civil Rights Project and Academic Professionals of California, Cal State University Dominguez Hills needs 91 percent remediation, CSULA needs 89 percent remediation and Cal State University San Bernardino needs 75 percent remediation. CSUF falls between the highest and lowest remediation percentages.

Trotter said that the CSU aims to aid all incoming students. “There are a lot of issues here. But I know the people who started this (program) wanted to help people of color,” said Trotter.

“We tend to ethnitize everything, when in fact whites are amongst the second largest group that are in dire need of remediation,” said Teixeira.

To decide whether or not a student is remedial, “the CSU will take a look at test scores on the Early Assessment Program taken at the end of 11th grade in a California public high school, or the Entry Level Mathematics Exam and/or the English Placement Test taken during their senior year of high school,” Order 1078 states.

“Remedial students did not fail to prepare for CSU. Remedial students are the majority. Remediation can be seen as a social justice remedy because if remedial eduction was not available in the CSU then many fewer students would have access to a college education in California,” said King.

Teixeira feels that the MESP just raises the level for the students that have always had an unequal everything.

“It is a very cumbersome process right now. But it is the Trustees’ policy and it was passed by the Board of Trustees, so no matter what it will start in the summer 2012,” Trotter said.

Dr. King stated that according to the Chancellor’s Executive Order 1048, if students do not participate in the remedial summer program prior to their expected start date, they cannot attend a CSU.

“If (students) have not started to address a deficiency in either mathematics and/or English, they will not be permitted to enroll at the CSU campus of their admission unless they have applied for an exception, and the requirement has been waived due to extraordinary circumstances,” Order 1078 states.

In the Programmatic Requirements section of Order 1078, it says that the remediation requirement does not require that students demonstrate a proficiency at the end of the summer, “only that remediation has begun.”

Joe Lopez, president and CEO of Associated Students Inc., asked the panel, “Are there any people within the CSU, other than those present, that are advocating for students?”

Order 1078 also addresses the issues of financial aid for remedial students.

“Matriculated students who are required to enroll in remediation during the summer immediately after high school and immediately preceding the fall term shall be classified as early entrants,” the Order states.

Early entrant students can qualify for financial aid if they meet six specific CSU conditions and they try to qualify for a Pell Grant.

Teixeira is afraid that “MESP will become too much of a dollar opportunity as far as extended education is concerned.”

“A lot of us don’t have a problem with this, except for the fact that it’s mandatory and it seems like it’s just another admissions requirement that penalizes students who have already been cheated by the educational system,” King said.

Trotter did not deny the fact that parents and students alike will have concerns. “I cannot believe that when this hits it will survive. But people above me have control over this mandate.”

The panel, at the end of the discussion, directed their concerns toward the government: “If President Bush and President Obama bailed out the banks, insurance companies and automobile companies, why not have a real bailout for public education?”

King said there are many things everyone can do in regards to MESP. “First, understand the problem and get informed. Hold campus meetings for people who care about this, collect public data, that way we can push our leaders to commit to quality public education.”

Chancellor Charles B. Reed of the CSU signed Order 1078 on June 11, 2010. The CSU is currently reviewing MESP plans submitted by all 23 CSUs and is planning on beginning campus implementation in February 2011.

Ed Royce

 

District Update | January 31, 2011 Click here if you have trouble viewing this message.

Dear Friends,Actress Kristen Bell will provide the keynote address at my Third Annual Women's Conference. This event will be held in conjunction with Cal State Fullerton's Women and Philanthropy Network at CSUF's Titan Student Union Center on Saturday, April 2, 2011. Kristen Bell, this year’s keynote speaker, is a strong supporter of Invisible Children, a group that is dedicated to creating awareness about the plight of child soldiers in Uganda.  Bell is probably best known for her roles in the romantic comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall and the TV series Veronica Mars. This year's conference will offer unique advice for job seekers, stress management techniques, nutrition tips, financial advice and safety tips that every woman should know. Click here to RSVP for the Women's Conference.  I look forward to seeing you in April. Sincerely, Representative Ed Royce Top District Issues Royce Reacts to President Obama's State of the Union Address In an exclusive to the FlashReport, Rep. Royce provides his thoughts on some of the specific issues raised by the president during his State of the Union address.  The following is an excerpt from that exclusive: This was the president that authorized the bailouts, signed the $800 billion un-stimulating stimulus package, created the $2 trillion entitlement program known as Obamacare and increased overall spending by 84 percent. Since the president’s last State of the Union speech (when he proposed his first failed spending freeze), our national debt has gone up by $1.7 trillion. Now he’s calling for a freeze rather than cuts? I am afraid he’s a day late and a few trillion dollars short. Click here to read the piece in its entirety.   House Republicans Committed to Cutting Washington Spending Last week, the House passed H.Res. 38, a resolution that puts the House on a glide path to a significant drop in spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011.  The resolution cuts non-security discretionary spending to pre-‘stimulus,’ pre-bailout levels or lower.  This legislation is expected to trim $60 billion or more from non-security discretionary spending. Click here for more information about this legislation. EVENTS March 14: Royce will host an informational meeting for students to learn more about West Point, Annapolis, Merchant Marine, Air Force and Coast Guard. Click here for more details. April 2: Royce will host his Third Annual Women's Conference.  Actress Kristen Bell will be this year's keynote speaker. Click here for more details. In Case You Missed It At the state dinner for China's President Hu Jintao, a Chinese-born pianist Lang Lang used his time in front of the two presidents to play an anti-American propaganda song, "My Motherland."  Royce blogged on this incident last week.  Click here to read Royce's blog post entitled, "Hu’s Tickling the White House Ivories?!" CONNECT RSS Feeds Facebook Youtube Foreign Intrigue Blog

DISTRICT OFFICE 1110 E. Chapman Ave., Ste 207 Orange, CA 92866 T (714) 744-4130 WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE 2185 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 T (202) 225-4111

UPDATE SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US

Click Here to view this email in your browser
Click Here to be removed from this list

Fullerton's EV Free Wants Young Adults to Connect

Maybe you are checking out Ev. Free for the first time. Maybe you’ve been coming to church for years, and feel like it’s finally time you got involved.

Maybe you just finished college and moved back in with the parents.

Maybe you’ve decided to go back to school or get another degree.

Maybe you’re in relationship with that guy or girl who might be “the one.”

Maybe you can’t remember the last time you went out with someone who was “normal.”

Or maybe you’re somewhere in between.

Wherever you are at, we’d love to help you get connected to others and grow in your faith.

THURSDAY NIGHTS

7:30PM in The Commons, Room 212

Join us on January 6th when we start a new series!

Learn more at: http://www.evfreefullerton.com/connect/youngadults.html

Happy New Year

The Fullerton Sentinel wishes you a very happy New Year!

‘Glee’ causes anger and depression

By Ally Bordas
For the Daily Titan (re-posted here without permission)
Published: December 07, 2010 Glee is the worst sitcom ever created. Why anyone in their right mind would waste one hour every week watching this show is beyond me. Glee makes me want to lash out.

Our media has become infiltrated with idiotic individuals scrambling to keep the masses of our nation entertained, since we desperately cling to all things new and improved with the potential to take the world by storm.

The fact that this show has exploded and made everyone a part of it an instant superstar is seriously disturbing. I am begging, pleading, with citizens, non-citizens and aliens alike to band together and overthrow FOX for airing this sort of rubbish.

Unite or be forced to watch people in their late 20s dressing like high schoolers and singing songs when in fact they are butchering all that is great about music!

Glee was inspired by high school drama, sex and choir. FOX aired the pilot episode in 2009. Since then, it has completely blown up into a social phenomenon.

The show has been nominated for 19 Emmy awards, four Golden Globes, six Satellite Awards and 57other awards.

Is this what the youth of America, nay, all of America has become consumed by? Slutty girls and bad choir performances? I like my brain! I like knowledge! And hardcore cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester, played by Jane Lynch, is legitimately torturing every fiber of my being.

The writers of this show, who I now have a personal vendetta against, are Ryan Murphy, Brad Falchulk ad Ian Brennan.

These writers missed the target from day one. For example, let’s dissect the word glee; the first part, beginning with “g-l” automatically makes me think of gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins. Which makes sense, seeing as the majority of America is an over-indulgent nation, enjoying shows such as Two and a Half Men, Trueblood and of course, Glee.

The second part of the word, ‘e-e’, makes me think of e.e. cummings, the sappy love poet. Glee is the cheesiest show ever with the most horrendous plotline, so e.e. cummings fits into this equation perfectly.

Put the word back together and you have Glee: over-indulgent people pretending to feel the most unrealistic level of happiness that no one in this economy will ever attain.

Let’s take a look at the show from a different perspective, like if Glee is a realistic portrayal of high school: haha don’t make me laugh, hell no it is not a realistic portrayal! Wake up to the injustice they are serving our mindless youth!

Glee is completely opposite of what real high school is like. Ian Brennan conceptualized the show based off his own high school experiences when he was in choir. What high school did he go to? Prick-town high?

Ladies and Gentlemen: This is not high school. Do not be so easily fooled. Where is the acne? Where are the braces, the high-pitched male voices that have yet to crack, the mismatched clothing, the battered lockers and all the other terrible plagues we all had to face in high school? They are missing because this is not high school. This show is a bad acid trip.

I felt like if I was going to write an article about Glee, I had better watch at least one episode. So for the sake of researching, I endured 45 minutes of torture in the form of the Glee episode entitled “Special Education.”

As expected, it was terrible. At least I got to watch the first 10 minutes sans singing. When the singing did kick in though, it hit with full force. In an apocalyptic way.

I still cannot believe they sang a song from the classic movie Dirty Dancing and did the famous dance, that is a terrible way to pay thanks to the late Patrick Swayze. And they sang a song by Florence and the Machine… so depressing.

In the end, not only was the acting heinous, the singing was just as unbearable. During the dialogue sessions, one character dropped the word hipsters, another couple went through a cheating scandal, every click just seemed to love each other and all the hidden advice this episode tried to give was so fake. I almost hurled.

I hope I persuaded the world against Glee. If you would like additional information on why NOT to watch Glee, check out Kroq’s Gleecap by DJ Omar Khan. Funniest segment on radio.

There’s an app for that

By Ally Bordas
For the Daily Titan (re-posted here without permission)
Published: December 08, 2010 Cell phones have changed our lives and destroyed them at the same time.

I do not know how many more times I will be able to endure wandering around campus watching hundreds of students and faculty alike making public love to their cell phone. It is distressing, and most of all uninspiring.

There used to be a time when cell phones were a coveted item to own. My favorite times in high school were the class periods when someone’s phone would randomly begin to vibrate aor ring and everyone in the class would make ridiculously loud distractions in order to save the culprit from getting sent to the deans office.

Fake coughs, pounding on desks and turret-like shouts were all tactics used by fellow students in order to save the owner from embarrassment and a for sure grounding. Ah man, the good ole’ days.

Now as I sit in class I notice that at least 90 percent of students have their cell phones visible during class and at least 75 percent of those students will check their phones multiple times. And let’s not forget the professors, who also either have their phones out on the desk and check it throughout class time.

I am mentally sick because of how consumed we all are by technology. What happened to mail, you know, being delivered and put in our mailboxes? Or documentaries, playing outside, long grungy hair and the phones that actually have cords? Am I just wishing that we could all go back and live in the ‘70s? Maybe. But I think my point is more valid than that.

Amy Gahran, specialist for CNN, wrote an article discussing how cell phones have changed our lives. Her article starts out very promising, but then takes a turn for the worst as she begins making love to technology as well.

“Cell phones provide vital services and human connections. They connect people in dire need with services that can change (or save) their lives and offer new hope, even through simple broadcast text messages,” Gahran said.

This is what Gahran was inspired to write after she witnessed a supposed homeless person on the bus whip out a cell phone.

Gahran goes on to advocate for everyone to purchase smartphones, “smartphones do matter. I own a smartphone, and I use it nearly constantly. (Over the summer I ditched my iPhone in favor of the Droid Incredible.)”

Cell phones do not really connect us at all! Yes we can instantly get in contact with each other, check e-mails and get news reports but is that really a human connection? They make us scared to interact with one another, invade our minds and implant a brand new slang language into our vocabulary that is less than impressive.

Now when I text someone and do not get a response they can make up so many excuses: my phone is broken, I lost my phone, I didn’t get your text I swear… back in the day there were no such excuses! You had to get creative to avoid people and almost always had to respond to someone or they would just show up on your doorstep.

I do not want a smartphone. I am not tempted in the slightest to go trade in my 1990s brick of a cell phone for a smartphone. Smartphones are going to pull a Transformers 2 and change into super smart robots that will take over the world! So much for getting prepared for when zombies attack, I am petrified of a technology apocalypse.

OK, I will not be completely ignorant and at least acknowledge the fact that with so many improvements in technology a lot of good has become of it. I admit it. But the question I have is when is it going to stop? When is it going to be enough?

Globalization has spurred so much international competition between countries that brilliant minds of our society are supercharged into wanting to discover the next big thing. But are these “next big things” causing an outbreak of laziness? Have we become so dependent on technology to do all of our work for us that we would not know how to survive in the world without it?

I still crave stimulating conversations and debates that get me riled up. I do not care about “news” updates on way too naive Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus on a stripper pole, the underage annoyance known as Bieber fever, Lady Gag-me, sexually charged dead vampires or where in the world Lindsay Lohan is. I want unbiased news no matter how hard that may be for people to understand. Wake up! Or the puppeteer (AKA technology corporations) will permanently own you.

We may not be smart but we are confident

By Ally Bordas
For the Daily Titan
Published: November 16, 2010
(re-posted here without permission)

Being educated is not important. As long as our government is confident, as long as we are confident, then we will make it in this world. Confidence is much more important than any education system.

What good is education really? I mean, seriously, with the budget cuts, ridiculously low employment opportunities and a worsening economic downturn, what is the point of school?

According to Open Innovation, education does not teach you the joy of living, “it only creates people who can earn their livelihood but it does not give any insight into living itself. It is not only incomplete, it is harmful too because it is based on competition.”

John Schulte, a retail tycoon, says “just because you don’t go get a degree does not mean you can be ignorant on your subject matter, it only means you’re not paying the university/college to tell you to read books on the subject.”

Let me tell you, it’s not a joy when I am sitting on the floor in a lecture class crammed wall to wall with people while my professor reads off of the power-point slides that I can clearly read myself. Like I can’t read two sentences on a larger-than-life screen with my own two eyes? Way to insult my intelligence.

I learn more from protesting the educational system than sitting in a classroom learning about it.

The educational system seems to capitalize on the student population, creating business drones that can quote statistic books but cannot hold a conversation about Marxism or history.

Our government is confident in us as American citizens so being educated is a footnote on the many lists of U.S. “successes.”

Dr. Roberts from Global Research says, “The U.S. owes its image of success to: (1) the vast lands and mineral resources that the U.S. “liberated” with violence from the native inhabitants, (2) Europe’s, especially Great Britain’s, self-destruction in World War I and World War II, and (3) the economic destruction of Russia and most of Asia by communism or socialism.”

“The U.S. nation is a failed state,” Roberts said.

Great Depression: FAIL.
Korean War: FAIL.
Vietnam War: FAIL.
Cold War: idiotic and FAIL.
Desert Storm: FAIL.
US Bank bailout: FAIL.
Recession: FAIL.

Um, should we really be confident in the U.S. with all those bomb fails? Maybe we should stay in school? Anyone?

“After 20 years of off-shoring U.S. production, which destroyed American jobs and federal, state and local tax base, the U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by U.S. government methodology in 1980, is over 20 percent. The ladders of upward mobility have been dismantled,” Roberts said.

Oh of course one could not forget the war against terrorism: EPIC FAIL.

According to Roberts, “the ‘war on terror’ completed the constitutional (and) legal failure of the U.S. The U.S. has also failed economically. Under Wall Street pressure for short-term profits, U.S. corporations have moved offshore their production for U.S. consumer markets.”

The extent of these failures is all hearsay, but in general, our country as a whole did not slam-dunk all of these wars and other issues.

Our government has installed fear in order to gain control. Now, a terrorist threat is “a creation of (our) own government (and) is sufficient justification for naked aggression against Muslim peoples and for an agenda of world hegemony,“ Roberts said.

Not only have we lost many, many young American lives at the hands of ignorant American dictators, we have lost billions of dollars, global credit and have been claimed as “brutal.”

What kind of confidence can be had after all of these failures? I mean how can the government function while drenched in blind confidence and narcissism? It’s disgusting.

Now we are left with no confidence and no need for education. What the hell do we do? We have become chained to our government; giving our leaders every fiber of our being… can you feel the heavy weight on your chest? That weight is the realization that our rights have become sickeningly limited. That weight is the realization that we are doomed.

So what can be done? Roberts gives us the pessimistic version, “the American people are lost in la-la land. They have no idea that their civil liberties have been forfeited. They are only gradually learning that their economic future is compromised. They have little idea of the world’s growing hatred of Americans for their destruction of other peoples.” Ouch. That hurts, especially if you are not “educated enough” to understand what that means.

We can go to school and become one with the grad school kids that use their degrees to be top-notch bartenders. We can educate ourselves on… I can’t remember what my lecture professor has taught me thus far.

But then again, we are the country of dreams, so my unending optimism forces me to believe that my college degree will aid me in some way. Yes, our government is very arrogant, but I am forced to believe that in the end, education is a great tool to aid me in becoming a confident being, ready to throw down against ignorance.

Borenstein: UC changes barely touch retirement cost problem

(posted without permission of the author)

Daniel Borenstein, MediaNews columnist

 

GENEROUS retirement programs that have been irresponsibly managed for decades are pushing the University of California off a financial cliff.

President Mark Yudof will ask regents this week to change the employee pension plan for new hires and reduce UC's contribution to health care costs for current and future retirees. But rather than reform retirement programs that are sucking money away from the classroom, Yudof is timidly fiddling on the margins, ensuring UC will be strangled by tens of billions of dollars of debt for decades to come.

Yudof's proposals are based on recommendations of a 28-member task force of UC administrators and faculty, most with a vested interest in the status quo, who quickly concluded that the current system must be maintained to attract and retain top-quality faculty.

UC could not, and should not, tamper with pension benefits employees have already earned. But, unlike most California public employers, it could, like the private sector, reduce, or even end, accrual of pension benefits for future work. That was never seriously considered, even though, for example, Harvard, Stanford, Yale and the University of Michigan don't provide guaranteed pension plans. Those schools instead offer faculty 401(k)-style retirement plans that avoid the risk of billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

Nor did the task force question why providing top-level pensions to attract coveted faculty members should determine the benefits for the much larger number of other university employees, who are more easily replaceable.


Instead, the task force proposed preserving the system for all employees with only minor tweaks. Yudof, in turn, echoes that in his recommendations to the regents in which he promotes inadequate solutions that will push the problem onto future generations.

Retiree health care

Since 1962, UC has promised health care coverage to retired workers. But rather than set aside money to cover the costs, the university has only paid the health insurance premiums when they come due. It's like promising a pension but failing to save money to fund it. It's a financial time bomb.

To adequately cover the retiree health benefits current and former workers have earned, UC should have set aside $16.1 billion by July 1, 2011. That "unfunded liability" is equal to more than two-thirds of the university's annual budget.

Yudof proposes two changes. First, he would reduce for all retirees the university's standard contribution to health care premiums from 89 percent of the cost to 70 percent over about the next six years.

Second, he would change the eligibility rules. UC currently makes the full standard contribution for 20-year employees who are at least age 50 when they retire. Under the new rules, 20-year employees would have to be 65 when they retire in order to receive the full benefit. Younger employees and those with less experience would receive smaller amounts.

But Yudof chose not to apply the second change to about half the current employees, thereby significantly reducing the potential savings. Consequently, the university would still be left with an unfunded liability of $13.4 billion by next year. Moreover, since Yudof has no plans to set aside money for future costs, the debt would continue to grow, reaching $21.9 billion in 2020.

Pension benefits

Most UC employees can retire starting at age 60 with 2.5 percent of top salary for every year on the job. So a 30-year veteran can collect 75 percent of salary. (The university and its employees also contribute to Social Security, which adds to those retirement payments.)

But the university's pension plan is underfunded by at least $6.3 billion because neither the university nor its employees made payments into the system for two decades -- while, at the same time, sweetening benefits. Blame regents, management and employee groups who agreed to this.

The contribution "holiday" started in 1990, when the UC retirement system had surplus funds, which ended this year. If the university and its workers had made payments over the past two decades, there would still be more than enough money in the pension system today.

Instead, the retirement program is underfunded and getting worse. The $6.3 billion liability does not yet account for most of the 2008 investment losses. To climb out of the hole, two things must happen.

First, UC and employees must contribute enough to cover the liability increase created each year as employees earn more future pension benefits. Right now, that liability increase is about $1.4 billion a year, or, put another way, about 17.6 cents for every dollar of salary.

UC policies adopted earlier this year require UC and its employees to start contributing again, but not enough to cover the liability increase. Employees are now paying 2 to 4 percent of payroll, and the university is contributing 4 percent. By 2012, that will ramp up to 5 percent and 10 percent respectively, shy of the needed total 17.6 percent. That shortfall means the system underfunding will worsen.

Second, the university must start paying off the total debt, which continues to increase. The problem has gotten so bad that regents have recently decided to repay the shortfall over 30 years rather than 15 years.
Think about it: For the next 30 years, future generations will pay off a mortgage created because UC and its employees failed to act responsibly during the past 20 years. Or, put another way, future students will have fewer instructors and support staff because money will be diverted for the next three decades to help pay costs the university and its employees should have been paying during the past two.

Looking to the future, the university is expecting its total share of pension costs to increase fivefold from today, reaching about 20 percent of payroll during a 10-year peak starting in 2018. It's unclear how UC, which is struggling to pay 4 percent now, will manage 20 percent in the future. Today, that would cost the university about $1.6 billion a year. UC will also need employees to kick in more.

To keep those numbers from getting even worse, Yudof proposes pushing back the retirement age for maximum pension benefits from 60 to 65 for new hires starting in 2013, and requiring them to pay more into the system. The so-called two-tier system is a marginal step in the right direction, but the savings are small and won't be realized for decades.

So, if UC officials this week try to sell this plan as reform, know that it's really only a minuscule down payment on a huge debt.

Daniel Borenstein is a staff columnist and editorial writer. Reach him at 925-943-8248 or dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/daniel-borenstein/ci_16598906?nclick_check=1

http://www.pensiontsunami.com/

Cal State Fullerton Reporter Slammed for Speaking Truth

(From Friends For Fullerton's Future)
A California State University of Fullerton student reporter has come under attack for quoting me in the Daily Titan.

Ally Bordas wrote a brief article for the Daily Titan on the financial mess at CSUF and pointed out the irresponsibility, waste, and hypocrisy within the university’s management. In her article, she quotes my blog post Cal State Fullerton President – Lifestyles of Our Rich Public Employees at the El Dorado Ranch.



CSUF Daily Titan scared by the truth



The CSU media specialist didn’t like the fact that Ms. Bordas used my post and even less that it was pulled from the 4F blog. Unfortunately, the story was pulled from the Daily Titan and Ms. Bordas has had to endure a lot of questions on her fact checking.

The fact remains that the words she quoted from me are based on the official legal agreement between the State of California and the Chapman family who donated the El Dorado Ranch. You can find the document at the Orange County Recorder’s Office by asking for Instrument No. 1989-334761 of Official Records. You can also email me at GregSebourn@yahoo.com and I will email the 28-page PDF to you.

Here are a few facts to consider about the El Dorado Ranch that the agreement spells out:

1. It was donated in 1989 by the Chapman Family.
2. CSU Fullerton President Milton Gordon takes office in August 1990, almost exactly 1 year after the donation.
3. No property taxes are paid on the compound because it is owned by the State of California. However, the Orange County Assessor still keeps track of how much the 4 acre property would be taxed if anyone else owned it. That figure puts it at $3,351,724 in 2009!
4. The property was donated and all parties agreed that the mansion would be the “official residence” of the president. This is mentioned multiple times throughout the agreement.
5. The agreement stipulates that the property shall not be converted into student housing. However, there is one MAJOR and MASSIVE exception. The “apartment adjacent to the house [which] may be used for support staff for the President of the University and/or El Dorado Ranch. In my initial post I said his assistant had a home on the sprawling estate but I was wrong. He could actually have as many assistants (a.k.a. “support staff”) as he feels he needs to have on hand and all of them are welcome to live at the El Dorado Ranch.
6. At the time of the initial donation, there were numerous antiques on loan to the State that remained in the home. Some items dating from the early 19th century.
7. The Chapman family still retains mineral rights to the El Dorado Ranch. That means they have a right to pump oil from underneath the State’s property.
8. Item 11 of Exhibit “B” of the agreement requires that any garden developed on the property shall be named the “Alice Wilber Chapman Garden”. Alice Chapman was the mother of the donors.
9. The property is owned by the taxpayers of the State of California yet the sign at the entrance reads “PRIVATE PROPERTY”. Surely it was an error on the part of some underpaid state employee who didn’t know that public property can’t also be private property.
   
10. Not in the agreement but worth noting is that we all need to do our part to conserve energy because energy conservation is clearly not high on the President’s list of priorities. Of course when someone else is paying the bill, who cares… Thanks for leaving the light on!
    

At the end of the day, Ms. Ally Bordas was correct to point up the chain of command within the CSU system and call out the hypocrisy that exists. The leadership insists on burdening the students with higher tuition and “fees” but they are not willing to look within their own ranks. The CSU system has many great minds but where they are being used remains a mystery. In my opinion, the media specialist should do a little fact checking of their own.

For Milton Gordon, its still good to be king!