Open Door Policy

I just read a really inspiring New York Times Article: Elite Colleges Open New Door to Low Income Youth

It chronicled a growing acknowledgment that providing opportunities to low income students to enter "selective" programs--which are typically dominated by more affluent individuals--provides excellent opportunities for social mobility for the working poor and poverty stricken.

This isn't the first article that I've read about traditional academic powerhouses, including Ivy League Schools, opening their doors to talented lower income students. However, it struck a bright chord with me because I've just finished reading Adrian Nicole LeBlanc's compelling non-fiction account of 2 Hispanic families in the Bronx during the rise of the drug epidemic during the late 80s and that continued to plague the 90s (Random Family).

The book realistically portrayed how it is to survive on meager incomes, in the worse neighborhoods in the country, with little support and/or guidance. The book was great yet bleak.

So coming off of reading the book, this article is exactly what I needed to read. I needed to feel that some do escape, that some can aspire to the American dream, instead of a life of frustration and poverty.

So reading this article was just what I needed. It really focused on something that I've said to people many times: socioeconomic factors can often be more powerful influences than age, sex, race, or sexual orientation. Seeing doors opened to give these kids the opportunities to pull themselves, and hopefully their families, from the same environments (breaking the cycle), is all that one can ask for.

I suppose this is the new Affirmative Action. I'm sure it will have it's share of critics as well. I hope that individuals like Mr. Jack will make people open their minds and that such programs become common place in this great country.

What's behind this?

I just read an article that was posted in the Metro that describes the Democrats plan to submit a non-binding disapproval of the Bush's administrations plan to deploy 20,000 additional troops in Iraq.

I ask what's the point? We know that many members of the House and of the Senate disapprove of the handling of the war in Iraq, the midterm elections signified that. We also know that the Democrats control the house and have a small majority in the Senate.

Before I go further into my rant I'll supply you with the article so you can see for yourself why I'm irritated:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democratic leaders circulated a nonbinding resolution Monday saying that Congress "disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush ... to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."

The measure, expected to come to a vote by Friday, also says that "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States armed forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."

Debate on the resolution is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, with each of the 435 House members allotted five minutes to speak. It will mark the first debate in Congress on the war since Democrats won control of the House and Senate in last November's elections. Opposition to the war figured heavily in the outcome of the election.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have vowed to force an end to U.S. participation in the war, and made debate over a nonbinding resolution a symbolic first step.

The House measure was drafted in simple, unadorned terms, an attempt by Democrats to maximize the number of Republicans who would support it and also to emphasize support for the troops. Republican leaders have said they expect at least a few dozen defections when the vote is taken later in the week.

House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said the GOP will have an alternative, but it is not clear that majority Democrats will allow it to be offered on the House floor.

"We're going to have Republicans who are skeptical of (Bush's) plan who'll probably vote for this," he said. Asked if he thought House Republicans would lose a third of their members to the Democrats' resolution, he said, "I don't think we'll lose that many."

Boehner complained Sunday that Democrats had backed out of a promise to allow an immediate, wide-ranging debate on Iraq.

On Thursday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Republicans would be permitted to propose an alternative this week to the Democrats' resolution. But on Sunday, Hoyer said that is "not necessarily our plan."

Hoyer, D-Md., said a House vote will be limited to the proposed resolution opposing President Bush's troop escalation and a Republican alternative would be voted on 30 to 45 days from now.

"Live up to your word," Boehner, R-Ohio, told Hoyer. Democrats, Boehner said, "won't even let us have a substitute. ... Give us a vote this week."

Boehner said Republicans want to offer a resolution saying a bipartisan panel should oversee the president's plan, with benchmarks to keep track of whether it is progressing.

"You're going to have that opportunity," Hoyer replied.

The lawmakers appeared together on "Meet the Press" on NBC.

Who is really in control of a war? Congress has the official power to declare war and can set appropriations for a war. The President via an Executive Order also has the power to declare war, though this has rarely been used and if my U.S. History is correct Harry Truman was the first President to exercise such power. The President is Commander in Chief.

I'm not a Bush supporter. I do not approve of his handling in Iraq. I wish the war was over. I hate to see American or any other nation's troops massacred in what I believe is ultimately a fruitless war on terror. However, we have made a commitment in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. The United States pulling out of either country with their tales between their legs would be catastrophic.

What's the answer how to handle this situation? I don't have it. I don't think most people do. John McCain suggested building up the U.S. troops. If I believed such a move would lead to a quicker resolution I'd say I was all for it. Call me a cynic. I can see us in Iraq ten years from now in some capacity.

There's a major pissing contest going on between Congress and the President and frankly in stinks. Ideally the most sound decisions would come from a group of military experts along with the President and his staff. It would be wonderful if Congress and/or the people backed the resolution, but if it brings a quick end to the conflict and we don't agree, who really cares. Being a politician isn't about kowtowing to demands from the public. It's about making the right decision. In this case the right decision is to support a government that U.S. forces along with the help of our allies helped to topple. You can't run away and hide now.

As you can see I still don't have an answer (otherwise maybe I'd seek political office--god help us if that ever happens). I just think Congress could be doing something else like fixing the impending collapse of Social Security, overhauling the Medicare system and health care systems in general, funding alternative forms of fuels such as hydrogen and ethanol...you get my point. I feel like all we are really seeing is posturing for the Democratic and Republican Presidential primaries. Frankly it stinks.

Finally, don't think that I believe dialogue concerning the handling of Iraq is fruitless. I think that if it ultimately leads to a solution its good. If it's just to bitch without coming up with a solution--What's the point?

Subcompact Car Market Alarming Findings

I was on Business Week's website and I clicked on the article concerning subcompact cars. Now I've been doing a lot of research on cars, getting around to getting my license--especially if I'm planning on going to graduate school in Boston.

So the subcompact market seemed pretty promising to me, especially due to their fuel efficiency and affordability. Now I've already moved on to deciding that the Mazda 6 or if my pockets are stretched too far--the Mazda 3 are my top two picks, with possibly the Civic on the same playing field.

Before that I was considering the Yaris, the Matrix, the Rabbit, the Cobalt, the Pontiac G5, and cars along those lines. They were a bit too compact for me, LOL, and didn't fit my image of a car worthy of my sense of style.

So I click on the Business Week Article:
How Safe is Your Small Car?
By By Matt Vella

I'll give you an excerpt from the article and I'll provide you with a hyperlink to the full article and the slideshow of ratings as well (should you still be interested in subcompact cars).

A new report from the IIHS shows a wide disparity in safety among the popular new crop of fuel-efficient minicars

Rising fuel prices and growing environmental concerns among consumers elicited a new mantra from automakers this year: "Small is good." Honda (HMC), Nissan (NSANY), Toyota (TM), and even General Motors (GM) hit dealers with new or redesigned subcompacts—all imports from other markets—tiny new citizens in a country of much bigger, heavier, and thirstier trucks and sport utility vehicles.

But in a land of giants, these new Lilliputians may be alarmingly vulnerable. Crash test results released on Dec. 18 by the Arlington (Va.)-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) show that so-called minicars can leave occupants in serious peril, especially when they collide with much larger vehicles like the ones that populate most American roads.

Optional Equipment Becomes Necessary IIHS reported that driver fatality rates in subcompacts are higher than in any other vehicle category. In fact, death rates in minicars are double those in midsize and large cars. Fatalities in single-vehicle accidents, meanwhile, are higher in smaller vehicles than larger ones.

The new crash results show that passengers in very small cars can suffer serious or even fatal injury in collisions with other vehicles, particularly in side- and rear-impact crashes. Of the eight vehicles tested, all but one earned ratings of "poor" or "marginal" in at least one of the three tests administered. Models from Toyota, Scion, and Hyundai earned scores of "poor" in side-impact tests; the Chevrolet Aveo, a rebadged Daewoo import, earned a "marginal" score.

Side-impact tests conducted by IIHS are designed to mimic collisions with larger vehicles. The crash barrier is lifted to the height of a truck or SUV, pitting it directly against the windows of most minicars. The difference in size puts the barrier at head level for passengers and even direct contact in cars without optional side airbags. The results in poorly designed or poorly equipped vehicles aren't pretty.

The difference between serious injury and death can sometimes be a matter of optional equipment. Adrian Lund, president of the IIHS, says: "It's simple physics; the laws of physics dictate that a larger car has more protection. In small cars, then, the optional safety equipment becomes all the more important."

Now common sense does tell us that a smaller car would be more vulnerable in a collision than most larger vehicles. Fuel efficiency appears to the be the catch phrase of the industry due to rising (though currently stationary) fuel costs. As the article states most of the automobile manufacturers have been rushing to tap into the rising interest by consumers by introducing new/redesigned subcompact and compact vehicles.

Personally, I need a vehicle that I'm going to feel safe in. I've seen enough of those Jetta commercials to see how dangerous collisions are. Automobile manufacturers of the world lets try having safety and fuel efficiency as goals for this burgeoning market. No one wants to be subcompacted in their subcompact.

How Safe is Your Small Car?

Slide Show

I was just on the New York Times website reviewing the most popular articles. I came across one that I glimpsed in December, but today it struck me in a completely different way than before.

It centered on questions that couples should ask themselves before they get married. I thought the list was really good--and if more oouples dealt with these issues instead of impulses the divorce rate might not be as high in this country as it presently is. Love will only take you so far, communication will take you the rest of the way.

Questions Couples Should Ask (Or Wish They Had) Before Marrying

Relationship experts report that too many couples fail to ask each other critical questions before marrying. Here are a few key ones that couples should consider asking:

1) Have we discussed whether or not to have children, and if the answer is yes, who is going to be the primary care giver?

2) Do we have a clear idea of each other’s financial obligations and goals, and do our ideas about spending and saving mesh?

3) Have we discussed our expectations for how the household will be maintained, and are we in agreement on who will manage the chores?

4) Have we fully disclosed our health histories, both physical and mental?

5) Is my partner affectionate to the degree that I expect?

6) Can we comfortably and openly discuss our sexual needs, preferences and fears?

7) Will there be a television in the bedroom?

8) Do we truly listen to each other and fairly consider one another’s ideas and complaints?

9) Have we reached a clear understanding of each other’s spiritual beliefs and needs, and have we discussed when and how our children will be exposed to religious/moral education?

10) Do we like and respect each other’s friends?

11) Do we value and respect each other’s parents, and is either of us concerned about whether the parents will interfere with the relationship?

12) What does my family do that annoys you?

13) Are there some things that you and I are NOT prepared to give up in the marriage?

14) If one of us were to be offered a career opportunity in a location far from the other’s family, are we prepared to move?

15) Does each of us feel fully confident in the other’s commitment to the marriage and believe that the bond can survive whatever challenges we may face?

Why Do Men Spend So Much Time at Their Jobs?

I just read an interesting article on Yahoo (that came from Men's Health)--a magazine that I have subscribed to in the past.

It was a very interesting and I think accurate article about why men can have faults in their relationships that they do not exhibit in business.

I'm actually going to paste the article below instead of including a link to the post. Please let me know what you think.

Why Do Men Spend So Much Time at Their Jobs?
By David Zinczenko

The question comes up over and over again in relationships. She says to him: If you gave me the same amount of attention as you give your boss, we'd be topside on the Love Boat rather than ballast in the Titanic.

Kinda true, right? At work, men can't communicate enough with e-mails, memos, brainstorming meetings that last all morning, and drinks that intrude on the dinner hour. But in a relationship, we hardly mutter an "uh, huh" when women ask if the dress looks okay. At work, men come up with creative solutions to problems. In a relationship, we hold our ground in the never-ending arguments about the budget/remote/toilet seat. At work, we're never satisfied with an average performance. In a relationship, we sometimes are. And then we fall asleep.

So, of course, it's a natural question for a woman to ask: Why is it that men obsess about work so much and spend so much time there-even without seemingly direct rewards or benefits for doing so? Part of the reason is that we value job performance and career advancement almost as much we value SportsCenter (almost). In fact, 35 percent of men in my Men, Love & Sex survey say that a 50-percent raise would be the one-time life boost that would make them feel the best-beating out both losing 20 pounds (29 percent) and working less to spend more time with the family (11 percent). Ouch.

The quick and obvious explanation is that men can take their relationships for granted after they've been in it for a while. In fact, that very sense of security is what we treasure most about a long-term relationship, in part because we can't afford to view our jobs the same way. These are some of the main reasons why men seem to have such great relationships-with their boss and coworkers.

They're Always Out to Prove They Are THE Guy

Early on in a relationship, a guy is competing for a woman's attention against all kinds of potential suitors. So he's at his best-witty, romantic, generous, unselfish. Once he knows he's the guy in the relationship, the pressure to perform decreases. At work, that drive is the same: He's competing against lots of other people for jobs, for raises, for respect-and a man's competitive nature drives him to want to be the best out of all the others. The difference in a job setting is that the pressure to perform never decreases, and he's always competing to be the guy. Even when he's the big boss, he's competing against other big bosses for his company's share of the pie (that is, the whole damn thing).

Not Working Equals Weakness

Of course, women have a lot of unfair stereotypes that they're fighting against day after day. But one of the stereotypes that men are saddled with is that their career success is a measure of their personal worth. The sociologist Warren Farrell has written that just as women are at times looked at as "sex objects," men are at risk of being considered "success objects"--to others, to themselves. Not working, or working in the same job, or never mustering the drive to move up makes us feel like going-nowhere dolts. Some of a man's drive to succeed comes from the desire to make more and more money, but some of that drive also comes from the desire to earn more and more respect.

They're Always Playing to an Audience

The difference between work and home life is like the difference between a filled-to-capacity stadium and an empty practice field. Men tend to feel the performance-anxiety pressure to succeed, to not make mistakes, and to excel when a whole company's watching. Right or wrong (OK, undoubtedly wrong), the natural tendency is to not give as much effort as we should when the only third-party eyes that are watching are the dog's.

Think I've nailed it on the head? Or is there something else that's driving men to spend those long hours at the office? I want to know what you think.

Yahoo has some pretty interesting comments posted on this article. You can find them at Link to Article and Commentary

Women In Science

Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches

I was on the New York Times website a few minutes ago. The article above was obviously of interest to me. My girlfriend is taking up a degree in Conservation Biology, I love science (not to the same level she does--but I did receive an award at my high school graduation for my exploits in A.P. Biology and overall science skills), and it provided an opportunity for me to educate myself.

This article sounded vaguely similar to a discussion we had on our email chain about African-American lawyers. Sometimes when people think of Affirmative Action they forget that women have benifited as much from the legislation as traditional minority groups (blacks, hispanics, etc.) This is not a knock on Affirmative Action or a resounding plea for the legislation to stay in place. However, it is the recognization that people generally forget about how women benefited from the legislation despite the fact that most people view it in terms of race.

That aside I found the article informative.

"Since the 1970s, women have surged into science and engineering classes in larger and larger numbers, even at top-tier institutions like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where half the undergraduate science majors and more than a third of the engineering students are women. Half of the nation’s medical students are women, and for decades the numbers have been rising similarly in disciplines like biology and mathematics."

I found this extremely encouraging.

"Yet studies show that women in science still routinely receive less research support than their male colleagues, and they have not reached the top academic ranks in numbers anything like their growing presence would suggest.

For example, at top-tier institutions only about 15 percent of full professors in social, behavioral or life sciences are women, “and these are the only fields in science and engineering where the proportion of women reaches into the double digits,” an expert panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences reported in September. And at each step on the academic ladder, more women than men leave science and engineering."

This is a trend that I hope some day can be reversed. I know that this is a male-dominated society. I found this result extremely troubling with the amount of women in science degree programs. Some of my best science professors have been women. I think they deserve their fair chance. I believe they will get there, because for the most part women are resilient. Each step that they climb is worthy of celebration, but until they get to the top they will not be satisfied. If you know me I say men are sprinters, women are distance athletes. Genetically they are built to outlast (see any figure on male/female death statistics). They play such an important role in our society not only as caretakers but as politicians, lawyers, doctors, academics, etc. I hope like any group that all the hard work and activism pays off, if not for our generation, for the future...

At the end of her talk, Dr. Steitz displayed a chart showing rises in the proportion of women in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty. There were few until the passage of civil rights legislation 40 years ago, when the numbers jumped a bit and then leveled off, she said. The numbers jumped again in the late 1990s after a report criticized the institute’s hiring and promotion practices as they related to women.

“We now have another plateau,” Dr. Steitz said, “and it’s my fervent hope that Larry Summers, God bless him, and the report that’s just come out will have this kind of impact.”

Ms. Imoukhouede hopes so, too. She said she was encouraged by the National Academy study — “that it could be done, and that it was taken seriously, that people would be willing to listen to women bringing up these issues.”

Meanwhile, though, she added, “I try to spend less time thinking about these perceptions and more time on my research.”

I included this last paragraph for encouragement. I am a male, a black male, and I think our country would benefit from women reaching the pinnacle of all fields--science included. While I would hardly call myself a feminist, I am a realist and I believe everyone deserves a fair opportunity to follow their dreams--as a society we must do what we can to make sure that they can. So I guess I'm not a feminist and I'm not 100% in support of Affirmative Action--but if it gets more qualified female applicants in traditionally male-dominated arenas--I'm all for it (at least while its purpose hasn't been outlived).

The future's so bright I have to wear shades!

Cyber Addiction

I know that it has been awhile since I've posted. You should be scared because I will have to make up for my lack of attention to my blog. Perhaps I have lost some of the 84 people that have viewed my blog in its short inception. I promise you bigger and better posts for 2007--(don't I sound political)?

I read this very interesting article on BusinessWeek's website this morning--titled 'Virtually Addicted.' I'll give you a short synopsis of the article:

There was a certain vet of the Vietnam War whom claims he suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He'd been employed at IBM for 19 years. He was sacked as a result of a stool-pigeon that noticed his use of sexual language in an explicit chat room during office hours. IBM has basically a strict zero-tolerance policy on Internet usage. As a result, he was fired. The former employee then sued IBM stating that he had an Internet addiction.

The whole case sounded pretty cut and dry, meritless. Well that is until you delve deeper into the article. There are some experts that claim Internet addiction is a valid mental illness comparable to alcohol/narcotics addiction. In China they offer a 2 week rehabilitation for Internet addicts where you are treated for the illness.

The implication of this case stretches further than a pervert getting his rocks off. Instead it could force many insurance companies/business to alter their human resource policies to include dealing with such an issue.

At my company we don't have a zero tolerance policy. You will get a warning, and as some proponents in the article mention there is a progression of steps before you'd be fired. I still think the suit is meritless. Would you forgive a cigarette smoker for taking 20 breaks a day? Of course not. Productivity is the key. Someone that surfs the Internet can not maximize productivity or even come close to it. Manage your addiction during lunch time or during breaks--and be smart enough not to look at graphic content or type it where someone else can see it--or where it can be easily detected. This is coming from an MIS guy who really doesn't care what you do, as long as you don't compromise my network. HR obviously has other issues. And for the love of god don't have sticky keys either!

Virtually Addicted

Why Prostitutes Should Not Be Allowed To Address The Media!

So there seems to be a possible serial killer in Atlantic City, New Jersey. I'm scheduled to visit this seedy part of town on the 15th. I've never been to Atlantic City myself, but I've heard tons about drug addicts, prostitutes, and the normal crime factions that attach themselves to the casino world.

Please click on the link below for more information about the recent events in Atlantic City. Notice there isn't much about forensics, but mostly of the concerns of some streetwalkers that tragically are hilarious in the way that they discuss coping with the current issue. Please bear in mind that I think the whole situation needs to be resolved immediately. However, I couldn't help laughing at the hookers.


Atlantic City Serial Killer

No Child Left Behind



This double posting is courtesy of the article that I just read:
No Child Left Behind

I found this article particularly disturbing. Especially because I know that people may come to the conclusion that Black students are inferior to Asian and White students based on sheer numbers. That is a misconception that it has taken many years to disprove. There was a time at the turn of the twentieth century where we were thought to have smaller brains. I suppose those who are looking for justifications based on numbers surely have ammunition if they incorrectly analyze the data.

I have many friends that are educators and they will back me up when I say that No Child Left Behind is flawed in it's logic. While the legislation's goal is to decrease the achievement gaps between whites and minorities based on tougher standards it is not taking into account why minorities are doing poorer on standardized exams. This blog isn't about making excuses. I would love it if ten years from now we could put W. on a pedestal (for one thing at least, LOL) and say that he took the first of many steps to address such issues. I'm not sure I'm confident that will be the case.

Instead I would like to ask to see numbers based on socio-economic level instead of on race. I would venture to say that minorities that are at similar socioeconomic levels with their white counterparts do as well in school. It's all about opportunities.

In the past fifty years we've seen Brown vs. Board of Education, Topeka Kansas (1954) strike down separate-but-equal institutions. We are in a country that some experts say is more segregated now than it has ever been. Has the quality of education improved? Not at all. Integration was supposed to bring about opportunities.

Why do you W. think that you can solve problems that we have been unable to resolve in 50 years in ten?

You want to see minorities do better in school? Then pump more money into their school systems. Even in New York we needed lawsuits to see City children get their money's worth. The children from the suburbs upstate were disproportionately rewarded with state funds while those in the city that really needed it weren't privy to it. There was speculation for years, but someone unveiled it. People like Mayor Bloomberg and Eliot Spitzer fought for the money. Now we'll see what that 1 billion dollars can do for us. Why were the children doing better upstate? They had more resources, of course.

If you are amongst the group that think minority students are inferior I'd like to invite you to A. Philip Randolph High School. It's nationally recognized. It's a public school. Over 94% of the students go on to college. It's an engineering/medical high school in Harlem. Students are recruited by every major college in the country. The standards are so high that we were told to apply to schools where our averages might be lower than the recommended guidelines. Because we went to Randolph of course. Because we had went to Randolph.

Show them the money and I'll show you results!