I found a very interesting commentary on CNN about the state of our education system here in the United States. It’s really quite sad, but at the same time, it’s true. I advise you to read the whole article, but there are a couple of parts in particular I would like the highlight here.

We’ve witnessed the decline of the importance of schooling in far too many homes. Learning must be a top priority for parents. But in today’s brutal economy, breadwinners are forced to work two jobs, two parents sweat to keep their jobs and homes, and the kids get left unsupervised. They go online, text their pals, stare at the tube (or YouTube), and play video games. They’re not dashing out to the public library to research renewable fuels or Renaissance history.

First of all, the parents are indeed to blame for part of the decline in education in this country. I understand many families are in a situation where both parents have to work in order to survive. This means they cannot be with their children as much as they would like to be and leads to a situation where a nursery or daycare ends up raising them. This, I believe, is where the problem starts. By the time the parents and children are at home together, everyone is too tired to do anything productive. This means that the children’s home environment is hardly conducive to an educational atmosphere. Instead, the parents and children sit themselves in front of the TV or computer and vegetate until they go to bed.

Let me take a step back. While it may be true in a lot of cases that both parents have to work to survive, let’s take a look at what it means to “survive.” In my opinion, this does not mean having the latest and greatest technology, having two or three new cars or having an over-sized house. Those are things which can be done without and should even be sacrificed for the sake of your children. If both parents have to work to be able to afford two new cars and a huge house, then maybe downsizing is in order so that one parents either doesn’t have to work at all or can work part time. This would allow time to devote the children.

Unfortunately, too few people agree with me on this point. They would rather just put their pesky children in a day care and enjoy their enormous HD flat screen TV in a house that could fit twice as many people comfortably.

Then of course we have No Child Left Behind.

One major bone of contention among parents and educators was Bush’s 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, whose focus was squarely on standardized, multiple-choice test scores in Math and English rather than on the quality (and deeper grasp by the student) of the curriculum.

Bush’s No Child Left Behind act has probably been one of the worst things to happen to the American education system since its inception. I understand the underlaying principles behind it, but the problem is that standardizing everything does not help the situation. On the contrary, it only makes it worse. Then of course you have the problem of the standardized tests. Suddenly the federal government is requiring that our schools have to teach to a test. That means the students learn how to take a test, but that does not mean that they actually learn the necessary content. We are going to have a generation of test-takers who leave school knowing very little of what they actually should have learned.

The ramifications of such an act on the education system goes even deeper than just that. Students who are intellectually gifted and are able to pursue more difficult subjects or grasp more difficult concepts are suddenly being stifled and held at the handicap of the least capable of the class. Why should these people be held back instead of encouraged to excel? We, of course, don’t want to make the people who struggle with school feel stupid because some people are more capable, do we? (Note the sarcasm.)

Then we have the drinking problem.

As Mark from Philadelphia wrote, “Having just been a high school student less than a year ago, I can tell you how rampant the alcohol and drug problem among our youth is. I can literally only name one peer of mine who has not done marijuana, and not one who has not drunk alcohol. This is just one necessary step in reforming our schools.”

As a relatively recent high school graduate, I can assure you that what Mark from Philadelphia wrote above is unfortunately quite accurate. I knew several people who regularly smoked marijuana in their parents’ basement or in their friend’s parents’ basement. But while I knew more than just one peer that did not do marijuana, I hardly knew anyone that did not drink and party excessively. Let me remind the reader that this is high school we’re talking about. We’re not even talking about college students yet!

Since students are generally unmotivated to work hard in school and because schools need to simply allow students to get good grades and pass in order to receive funding (thank you, No Child Left Behind), they do not study hard at school. They do not even try. They do the minimal amount of work required to pass with a C and are perfectly content walking away knowing nothing. The strive for knowledge is gone with high school students. Instead of using their time studying, they use it for partying, drinking and smoking marijuana since they have nothing better to do. Those who do not feel the need to party excessively are then labeled as ‘nerdy’ and anti-social and thus cast out. That’s certainly not leaving any child left behind!

We are creating a society of idiots whose sole existence is to party and drink. This is a problem that desperately needs to be solved in order to meet increasing competition from the international community. If we don’t fix it, we are going to be in some serious trouble and soon.

Again, I recommend reading the commentary from CNN.

This is absolutely absurd! Led by Muslim nations, the United Nations has actually voted 23-11 in a vote “that urges member states to adopt laws outlawing criticism of religions.” What kind of smelly horse poop is that? How can the United Nations vote to restrict the criticism of religion? Does that mean I will go to jail for saying that Christianity is a mirage of meaning for the intellectually challenged? For saying that Islam is a hallucination of righteousness for the morally impaired?

Here is a portion of the article:

Freedom House condemns the UN Human Rights Council for undermining the universal right to freedom of expression by once again passing a resolution that urges members to adopt laws outlawing criticism of religions.

The “defamation of religions” resolution, introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), passed today by a vote of 23-11, with 13 abstentions. Muslim nations have been introducing similar resolutions since 1999, arguing that Islam-the only religion specifically cited in the text-must be shielded from unfair associations with terrorism and human rights abuses.

You can read the entire article here.

This is an article that shows the incredibly sad reality about grade inflation in American universities and its consequences. It is definitely worth a read.

I, like most people I know of my generation, have an extremely strong web presence. Facebook, MySpace, StudiVZ, Last.fm, WordPress.com, BlogCatalog and DeviantArt are just a few of the social networking sites that I have an account for. Of course that does not even include the other sites I have accounts for that are not technically social networking sites — websites such as Google and Amazon.com.

You have probably read it somewhere else before, but with the conveniences that these services provide comes the high price of anonymity and privacy. While some sites, such as Facebook and MySpace, are obviously much more attuned to the destruction of one’s privacy than businesses such as Amazon.com who use your personal information for business purposes (such as sending a package to your home address when you place an order), each time you sign up for a new account on a different website, a little bit more of your privacy disappears.

Unfortunately for someone of my age (a college student), having accounts on sites such as Facebook and MySpace are practically imperative for your social life. Let’s say you meet someone at a party who you would like to hang out with later or stay in contact with. The first thing they ask you isn’t for your phone number or your e-mail address, it’s whether you have a Facebook account. It’s gotten to the point that the only people you give your phone number to are your closest circle of friends. Receiving a text message is a far more private matter than receiving a message on Facebook. Why? I can’t really explain that.

Again, the biggest problem with this is the matter of privacy. While Facebook does allow you to change your privacy settings and you yourself can control what information about yourself you post to the social networking site, you can’t control what other people put on there. For example, I have always taken the precaution of not posting pictures of myself on the site; however, I am still somehow connected to over 100 different pictures of me that have been posted by other people. Facebook even furnishes a convenient link to these pictures right on my profile page. It is virtually impossible to control this.

On a side note, some may argue that keeping a blog destroys one’s privacy. That is not true unless the blogger wishes it to be so. While with blogging people have the ability to write about their personal lives or post private pictures (and no, I’m not talking about just naughty pictures), the beauty of it is that the writer has the ability to post whatever he or she wants and therefore the freedom to disclose or conceal whatever information about themselves to the world they want to.

The biggest concern I have with these privacy matters is largely two fold. First of all, I don’t think any government agent should be able to access my private information without probable cause, which is absolutely something he or she could do if it was generically posted online. The second concern I have is that future employers will ‘research’ me on the internet. I find it absolutely absurd that potential employers could justify not hiring me just because they found out about a party I went to or what my political or religious opinions are. That to me is an enormous violation of privacy and therefore I want to reduce the risk because the sad truth is that it actually happens.

In order to combat this potential problem, I have decided to attempt to reduce my web presence. This is by no means an easy task. Unfortunately in most instances, what you post on the web, stays on the web. Fortunately I have never posted anything too terribly private. I have begun by deleting my MySpace account. MySpace does not make it easy at all to cancel an account. They first make you confirm that you really want to three separate times, then they send you an e-mail with further instructions you have to follow in order to delete your account. In the e-mail you have to click a link where you are asked yet again if you really want to cancel your account. Then finally, they say your account has been ‘scheduled for cancellation’ and that it will take ‘up to 48 hours’ for the changes to take effect.

I would love to delete the other social networking accounts as well, but unfortunately it is the only way I have to contact a lot of people — especially a lot of international contacts I have. That is the hook. Once you start using the service, you’re essentially stuck if you want to keep in contact with most people.

As time goes on, I plan to systematically remove as many accounts as I possibly can. This task might sound easy, but in reality is quite difficult. Most services provide you with a way to remove your account and others just allow you to hide your account from public view, but most of these companies and websites keep your information despite requesting a deletion. We will see how many I end up actually deleting and how many I will deem necessary to keep.

Last Friday (the 13th), my 1987 Toyota LandCruiser was broadsided by a 2007 Ford F-350. My truck is totaled, but fortunately I wasn’t injured. I was driving down a road and the driver of the F-350 neglected to stop at a stop sign and just plowed right into me. He was leaving a parking lot and literally just didn’t stop at the stop sign which was at the exit of the parking lot.

I’ve posted some pictures of my truck after the accident here: http://picasaweb.google.com/seifertalex/CarAccident.

Here is an interesting tidbit of information on how to start the day off positively I found on another blog:

The following should put a smile on your face for the entire day (unless you’re a Liberal – they have no sense of humor).

Open a new file in your computer.

1. Name it ‘Barack Obama’.
2. Send it to the Recycle Bin.
3. Empty the Recycle Bin.
4. Your PC will ask you: ‘Do you really want to get rid of ‘Barack Obama?’
5. Firmly Click ‘Yes.’
6. Feel better?

GOOD! – Tomorrow we’ll do Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid the day after…

Reuters has an interesting article about how the addiction to bailout money from the government could wind up causing a lot more trouble than it is worth.

U.S. companies, consumers and communities may grow so addicted to government financial help that cutting them off could trigger another recession soon after the current one ends.

Between the U.S. Federal Reserve’s trillions of dollars in lending programs, the $787 billion stimulus package and $700 billion — and counting — in bank bailout funds, no one can accuse officials of soft-pedaling their crisis response.

But there is increasing concern that when the flow of public money subsides — beginning next year when much of that stimulus package is spent — the economy still won’t be strong enough to stand on its own.

Let’s see, we have companies such as AIG and GM who cannot stay afloat without bailout money, but what is going to happen to them when the bailout money is all gone? What happens to them when the government won’t or can’t give them more money? Their businesses are going to fail. They would have failed in the first place without a bailout, so why is the waste of money that is the bailout worth giving them in the first place? To “try and save them” is not going to do any good, because, as the article argues, companies are just going to grow dependent on an automatic, assumed income from the government. There is no motivation to change themselves and make themselves more efficient and profitable independently. So where do we end up? With companies reliant on government money to survive.

I really love the German language. I love it to the point that I use it all the time. I do, however, really just like to use English on occasion without any German. That mood, for lack of a better word, seems to come and go in phases. When I am more inclined to use English, I generally tend to read more books and write more on my blogs than when I am in the mood for German. Although now with my German blog, I have the ability to also write when I am in the mood for German as well.

At the moment, I really just want to speak English. And therefore I have been reading a lot more and writing a lot more blog posts. This phase will probably last a week or two and then I will be back in my German phase. I have no idea why I go back and forth so much, but it seems to happen all the time.

Time Magazine Online is running an interesting article about America’s recent obsession with allergies to peanuts and peanut products. Being a relatively recent high school graduate (2006), I can safely say that I remember when my school started implementing precautions against peanuts. It seems like such a ridiculous thing. I understand that there are people who are severely allergic to peanuts and should not come into contact with them, but as the article points out, more people die from bee stings a year and yet we still plant flowers and other plants that attract bees in public places. There are so few people who are actually deathly allergic to peanuts that to be so concerned and obsessed with them seems really pointless. As the article points out:

As more and more schools set up peanut-free zones and as food manufacturers add warning labels that their products might contain particles of peanuts, soy or other allergens, the abundance of caution is starting to trigger a backlash. Given all the attention paid in recent years to food allergies, the number of people in the U.S. who die from them–15 to 20 a year–is relatively small. More people die each year from bee stings. “But we don’t remove flowers from schools or playgrounds,” Dr. Nicholas Christakis, a professor of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School, commented recently in the British Medical Journal. When asked about his editorial, which he wrote after his son’s school bus had to be evacuated because someone spotted a peanut on board, he said, “We should be having a sober-minded, public-health debate, and instead the overresponse to food allergies is preposterous.”

An entire bus had to be evacuated because there was a single peanut on board. That is incredibly ridiculous. The article is definitely worth a read though because it really points out some of the absurdity of our unhealthy obsession with peanuts and allergies to peanut products.