And still people trust his judgement...

Romney said it isn't his job to care about 47% of the country...and still people trust his judgement.

Romney isn't distancing himself from Mourdock. He is still supporting the guy that thinks God intended rape...and still people trust his judgement.

Romney kept his son Tagg involved in his campaign after Tagg said he wanted "to take a swing" at the President, but didn't because there was secret service...and still people trust his judgement.

Romney used the London Olympics as a place and topic to insult our closest ally...and still people trust his judgement.

Romney held a fundraiser while visiting Israel...and still people trust his judgement.

Romney picked Paul Ryan, a guy who would make abortion illegal in cases of rape and incest..and eliminate in-vitro fertilization, as his vice presidential candidate...and still people trust his judgement.

Romney thinks that eliminating funding for Big Bird will pay for 2 trillion dollars of military spending that the military didn't ask for...he wants to give 2 trillion dollars to people who don't think they need it...and still people trust his judgement.

I no longer trust people's judgement.

Testing, testing, 1,2,3..

Quick update. I have two midterms tomorrow, one on Thursday and one on Friday. So! I can't expand on all the notes I took during the debate- and it is driving me crazy. Who can think of British Imperialism at a time like this!

I wanted to let y'all know that I am half way through an op-ed piece, and want to get a post up that dives into some of the claims fought over tonight. I know the news cycle will be playing similar things for a few days before I can, but hey I gotta make use of the grants and loans Obama fought for! 

If there are any particular claims or issues that you would like me to look into let me know, otherwise it'll be a grab bag that is conveniently focused on things that interest me. 

I hope everyone is having a great night! 

He. Shut. It. Down.

OBAMA!!

You did well tonight, sir. Very well.

PS if you find that you have luck wishes left to wish, wish me luck on these exams- four in a row really?! 

Let's talk about...the debate, baby

Politics does not have to be glum and heavy. Seriousness is needed when dealing with serious issues, but politics is ridiculous and laughing at it will prevent the weight of the world's problems from crushing the bearer. We've seen it do just that. It's a common observation that President's look strikingly older after office. All of these were serious men and none of them took the job lightly, so maybe we could all lighten up a bit.

Last night was fun. If you couldn't find Biden's performance amusing then you just aren't having enough fun in politics.

The debate was politics, Biden was laughing at Ryan's interpretation of the issues, not the issues themselves. And you know what, it was the most fun I've had with a VP debate ever.

These guys spend their lives self-editing to prevent offense, it is rare to see them unfiltered and giving their unedited, non-focus group derived, honest opinion.

He was fun, he was himself, and I loved it. 

This girl just wants to have fun...

Conversation I am fully expecting between Me and NBC News:

::As I go to replay the VP debate::
NBC News: Hey, you should probably stop watching this on a loop.
Me: But it's the most fun VP debate ever in the history of ever.
NBC News: yeah, but the dishes...
Me: Biden was on his game. It was like a real-time fact check. He was laughing and having fun. Ryan didn't lose it and stayed on message- he was perfect straight man. So fun.
NBC News: yeah, but...
Me: "Oh now you're Jack Kennedy?" hilarious.
NBC: dishes...
Me: If you didn't find last night entertaining then you just aren't having enough fun with national politics
NBC News: Isn't that from West Wing?
Me: good writers borrow from other writers, great writers steal from them outright
NBC News: Isn't that also...whatever. Tyler. Look at me, now look at your sink, now look back at me. Dishes.
Me: -_- Fine.
::I take the computer to the counter and watch the show while doing chores::

It's going to happen.

The eyes of Texas are upon your debt: Collegiate Cost Analysis

Today I read and reposted an article entitled, 'Don't Even Get Me Started Mythical Bootstraps Student' that proposed it was not possible, or at least extremely implausible, for a student without familial support to graduate from college debt free. The article was challenged on having too high of expected tuition and board, the author used the one in their city (University of Washington in Seattle). The author also concluded that anyone that graduated ten years ago could not relate because the numbers had changed too greatly- this was also challenged. So, I decided to do my own research.

I wanted to find out for myself the numbers behind today’s higher education landscape. So, I have pulled information for both flagship and satellite schools in both metropolitans and small towns. I have focused on one state to eliminate the policy differences between states, and I chose Texas because it is the greatest of all the states. University of Texas at Austin will represent a flagship university in a metropolitan; Texas A&M at College Station represents a flagship university in a small town; University of Texas at Dallas represents a satellite in a metropolitan; and Stephen F. Austin (SFA) represents a small university in the middle of nowhere.

I expected UT-Austin and UT-Dallas to have higher living costs, A&M and SFA to have higher transportation cost, and for tuition to be highest at UT-Austin and A&M because these are the larger universities. All of these numbers are from CollegeBoard.

	UT-Austin	A&M	UTD	SFA
Tuition & Fees	$9,794	$8,424	$11,168	$7,344
Books	$874	$1,340	$1,200	$1,107
Room and Board	$10,422	$8,200	$8,364	$8,186
Transport	$1,200	$500	$1,400	$2,800
Personal Expenses	$2,424	$2,262	$1,936	$1,729
Total	$24,714	$20,726	$24,068	$21,166

The most and least expensive schools are the two flagship schools. There may be wiggle room in the bottom three categories, but CollegeBoard has more time, resources, and man power to do that research so I’ll let it slide.

I'll also note that UT-Austin and A&M have significantly more opportunities for their students with a tie of 108 majors. SFA offers a respectable 70 majors, however has no engineering department. UT-Dallas comes in at fourth with 43 majors, however has no civil or chemical engineering despite generally being seen as an "engineering school." 

From my experience of living in Austin near campus I can attest that rent has skyrocketed in a very short time. In the span of one year my friend’s 300 sq ft studio’s rent went from $400 to $700, while my 400 sq ft studio went from $550 to $900. Neither one us could afford to stay. So I tried to live in student housing in East Austin for $400 a month including bills. Turned out it wasn’t really student housing. My roommates include a forty-year old woman who frequently entertained young gentleman and a drug dealer. In my complex, which was near several just like it, there was one murder I knew about, several beatings, and daily drug deals.

In addition to having the lowest yearly cost, College Station also has the lowest unemployment rate, at just above 5% it is great, and it is significantly better than Dallas and Richardson, 8.6% and 7.1% respectively. Nacogdoches and Austin round out the unemployment rates at 6.5% and 6.3%- all lower than the national rate of 9.1%. So, if a student is hoping to find a job during college A&M is the best job environment. However, the data does not include the salary or educational requirements of the available jobs. So, those numbers may not be as bleak or as hopeful as they seem.

I saw a commenter detail how they had put them self through college ten years ago and would only allow the concession that some people don’t have her work ethic. Someone else said there would be some increased difficulty, but did not seem to think the increase was significant. So how much has tuition increased in the past ten years at UT Austin? Try 134%! In an article written in UT Austin’s campus paper ‘The Daily Texan’ Collin Eaton wrote the article entitled, ‘ U. Texas tuition rates increased 134% in last decade.’ To the point and easy to find when googling, “Texas tuition increase over past decade” thank you Mr. Easton. In 1999 tuition to UT-Austin was $4020, in 2010 incoming freshman paid $9418. From 1990 to 2003 the yearly increase was 13% and from 2003 to 2009 there was an 8% increase.

Then there’s community college. Room and board, books, and personal expenses would stay nearly the same, transportation would increase in most cases as a car would likely be necessary, but tuition would decrease. The national average tuition for a full-time student at a community college is $2713- a $4631 savings. But the question a student has to ask is, will attending community college affect my chances of being accepted into a 4-year university, and my research answers yes.

An entering freshman has a 47% chance of being accepted to UT-Austin compared to the 41% chance on a transfer student. UT-Dallas, however, has a 15% increased chanced from the 50% acceptance rate of freshman. At Texas A&M, the least expensive of the four, the school that ties for available majors, decreases from an acceptance rate of freshman at 69% to a 48% acceptance of transfer students.

New York Times reported that two-thirds of 2008 graduates left school with debt, a significant increase from the less than half of graduates in 1993. Of the students in debt in 2008, most had at least $24 000 in debt.

Location and college size does not make a difference among the four four-year universities, and attending a community college may make it difficult to be accepted to a four-year university to complete a degree. Lack of willpower, diligence, or work ethic is not enough to explain two thirds of students graduating in tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt. It is far more likely that the debt is due to the drastic increase in tuition over the past decade.   

Pretty, Witty, and Gay...well Pretty at least

I originally wrote most of this to a friend, with whom I disagree on the subject of homosexuality. This became way too long for a facebook message, so I decided to post it here. It is not important what their position is, but that I can call them a friend because I trust their heart is good and respect that they are trying to do what is best and right. I abhor that society discourages discussing topics of contention by calling it "rude," and think such lack of practice leads to so many people confusing discussion and debate for arguing and yelling matches. So here it is, my point:

Although I was proud when the Catholic Church, along with the Church of Latter Day Saints and half of the Lutheran Church, declared that they do not believe it is a choice- but that people are born gay and lesbian. They and I diverge, of course, beyond that point as I do not believe that love can be a sin and they do not believe that homosexual love is real. But I am excited by the progress.

I have spent my childhood around homosexuality- anyone who grew up in ballet did.

                                                   Five years old as a Mouse in the Nutcracker.
I was exposed to the people, the culture, and the love at such an early age it always seems odd to doubt the beauty in any of it. Those people, and the homosexuals I have met since, knew love-I know because they loved me. They loved me as a friend and I trust their hearts and minds to discern the difference between a positive love and a negative lust.

Having experienced love and lust, which I recognize as something most people could claim but will only assign to myself, and knowing the stark difference between the two helps me trust that gays and lesbians can also recognize the difference. The guilt, heaviness, and doubt of sinful lust can not be confused with the utter happiness, confidence and lightness that true love brings. Love is confusing and difficult, but there is a large chasm between the trials of grounded love and the shiftiness of sin. Sin surrounds sin, Satan doesn't want one relationship he wants it all. So when I see the love and compassion and trust, when I see the positive friendships that surround these couples I can not believe that the relationships were ordained by evil.

                                                 Maybe nine, just before I left the house for a recital.

I am comfortable with trusting that some parts of the bible were the wisest wisdom of its time, but by any modern standard are just wrong. I do not believe in slavery, or that a disobedient child should be stoned, and for the sake of football I don't believe it is a sin to touch pigs' skin- oh and I really like shrimp too. I am comforted by knowing that societal change takes time, and if a book was written saying that women should vote, that no person is the property of someone else, or that all people deserve the same opportunities to better themselves, the bible would not have gotten off the ground--it simply would not have been listened to by anyone. That resolve is based off of my study of history and the constant "wait, be patient, these things things take time" slogan of the civil rights movement, the anti-slavery movement, women's rights movement, and the lets-not-burn-each-other-at-the-stake movement.

I am also comforted by the reality that some parts of the bible require a historical context, and that the contexts were not always considered. Today, Christians tend to pride themselves in considering the bible's contemporary culture, and the ancient Greek, that they forget that Christians, just as strongly, believed they were right when using the bible to silence women and separate races. We were wrong then, we're going to be wrong in the future, we're wrong about some things now- we are men. We sin, because we can not fully accept and give grace and love.

The imperfection of our world is heightened when as a collective we choose groups to blame our troubles on. Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, women, the Japanese, all of these groups have been blamed for America's problems and subsequently rejected and subjected to discrimination. Society seems to learn that they were wrong about that group, because it was this other group that really causes the trouble. Only in modern day would I argue that this is utterly pathetic due to our legally required education that is supposed to familiarize us with history and its patterns.

Please feel free to ask any question; make any comment; or, request clarification about any of my points. If there is anything that I hate it is people assigning me motives; especially without asking for clarification. I have read enough Victorian novels and Shakespearean plays to know that negative assumptions can lead to a life without friends, love, and sometimes to calling your fiance a whore at the alter and leaving her there to sort of die- No Claudio, don't listen to Don John he's a bastard!

                                           I couldn't choose between these three pics, so I'll end 
                                                            with this one of me before a jazz recital. I think I was eight.

I am 16, going on...24?

If when reading the title you hummed along to the Sound of Music soundtrack, stand-up and applaud yourself. Full bow, too.

My woes of being mistaken for a much younger woman have long since been recorded...by me...in my head...and now right here. Instances like:
In a Doctor's office::
    Nurse:"We need your father's insurance forms...your father... ::looks at my paperwork::...Alex"

In Target:
    ::I go to try a cracker/cheese sample::
     Cracker/Cheese Lady: "I'm sorry, but you'll have to get your mom to try a sample."

At the Russell Stover Factory:
    Teller: "Would you like to sign up for the Rewards Club?"
    Me: "Sure."
    Teller: "Wait, are you over 18?"
    Me: "How old do you think I am?"
    Teller: "16, maybe 17."

And my personal favorite...

Meeting Alex's Co-Volunteers at an Animal Shelter:
    Lady: "Are you [Alex's] sister, you're not quite young enough to be his daughter?"
Apparently the lady had not met with the nurse, because she would argue differently.

In my humble, yet always correct, opinion I have looked the same since the 9th grade, so I cannot entirely blame these ridiculous people who do not notice the diamond rings conveniently place on my left hand, symbolizing the current co-habitation co-love-sharing state of matrimony, recognized in most industrial countries. It is also not only my ageless, timeless, classic good looks to blame. No! There is also Hollywood.


Yes, gone are the days when a sex symbol was curvy, womanly, and above all of-age. Marilyn, Audrey, and Ava these women were in there late twenties/early thirties during their prime. Some Like it Hot was made when Marilyn was 33! Have you seen stills from her last, unfinished film?

Flawless!

Above all she looked like a sexy woman, because she was a sexy woman...stress on woman. She was not 16, she was not barely 18. Today young girls, no need to name the "starlets", are dressing to look like a woman who knew how to handle the attention she got, and undersood the consequences of that attention. Monroe knew that she was typecasted, she knew it would be difficult to ever break the "sex kitten" image; she knew the delicacy of a reputation. No, this isn't the 1800s and people should be allowed to express themselves; but the reality is that a reputation is even more likely to be damaged, spread, and irreversible in the limited environment of a high school than the "real world" where there is mobility and a multitude of possible friends.

There is nothing wrong with being a teen, it's great and everyone should be allowed to explore fashion...if they want to...I personally can only shop for 10 minutes before wanting to chuck a mannequin out a window, just to know fresh air once more.  However, when you can no longer tell the difference between a top for a 24 year old or a 14 year old there is a problem. It is no wonder why I, and so many of my friends, are thought to be so young! We're all dressed the same.

I also understand we have limited options, and that stores like Express and J.Crew will also advertise to teens because they have more buying power then the twenty-somethings. Read, they have their parents cards, we have our starting salaries. But there in lies the rub, parents are buying these clothes. I have never been one, and it will be a long time before I am one to a teen; but surely parents can at least check their childrens' purchases. 

Boys find sex sexy, girls want to look like what the boys want, hollywood provides the images for the boys and role models for the girls. That is, if you do not intercede. And even if you can't convince an 18 year old boy that a brain is sexy, or a girl that being a sex kitten has consequences, then bite the bullet, don't be the friend and only buy your child age appropriate clothing. Let only us twenty-somethings look like twenty-somethings.

If for no other reason then so it is obvious that I am 23!