Blog comments
March 11th, 2008 by ronburgandy in Uncategorized · No Comments
Which Score is Worth More?
February 24th, 2008 by ronburgandy in Uncategorized · 5 Comments
As students approach their senior year, they are frantically trying to score well on standardized tests. Students have the option of taking the SAT or the ACT. But which standardized should students take, which one can they score better on, which one is more prestigious? A student’s decision is personal, and they should take into account their abilities, gender, and the location of their preferred college.
A close look at a student’s attributes and abilities will help them decide which test is right for them. The ACT’s major difficulty factor is time constraints while the SAT uses trickier questions. The ACT questions are simple and knowledge based similar to a test in school. Thus, students who work harder and succeed in tougher classes will perform better on the ACT than on the SAT. Typically the SAT’s trickier questions are better suited for intelligent students, who are bored out of their minds in school, but they have the logic to answer the harder questions. Another factor to consider is length. The ACT is a four-section test lasting two hours and fifty-five minutes, and the SAT is a whopping ten-section test that lasts three hours and forty-five minutes. For this reason, students who can not focus well score better on the ACT. “If you have a short attention span and difficulty maintaining focus, the ACT may be for you”, says Marybeth Kravets, a college counselor in suburban Chicago. One more evaluation for a student to consider is that of his or her math skills. If math is not your best subject the SAT might be the test for you. The SAT does not include trigonometry.
Statistics show that men score better on both the ACT and SAT tests. But the gap between men and women is smaller on the ACT (only separated by two-tenths of a point) according to Michelle Slatalla’s New York Times article. Men as a group average 36 points better on the SAT than women as a group average. John Katzman, chief executive of the Princeton Review says, “Girls tend to fit pretty well into the group of high achievers, who get good grades and do well in school, who also do well on the ACT.” So if a student is in doubt about which test to take just let gender decide.
The region a student lives in or wishes to attend college in also determines which test he or she will take. The West and East coasts prefer the SAT. According to the Princeton Review 99% of Harvard applicants, 96% of Stanford applicants, and 98% of Cornell applicants submitted the SAT. But the ACT is still accepted at these institutions. The ACT is more prevalent in the Midwest. All Midwestern states have a higher percentage of ACTs taken over SATs except for Texas and Indiana. If a student wants to attend an Ivy League or West coast college he or she will definitely have to take the SAT. Although acceptance can be achieved with the ACT the SAT is preferred.
Despite the differences in the tests, a good test taker on the ACT will still be a good test taker on the SAT. But with college admissions becoming increasingly selective any little edge in a standardized test score can make the difference. Therefore, every student should think hard and make a prudent test choice, but most importantly they should just study.
How JFK Could Solve America’s Problems
February 13th, 2008 by ronburgandy in Uncategorized · 2 Comments
Today’s presidency is plagued with internal problems, a global conflict on radical Islamic terrorism, and a failing economy, formidable adversaries for any statesman. John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the youngest president elected and was the youngest president to die. Nevertheless in his short presidency lay the answers to the majority of America’s problems today.
The Bush administration has suffered many CIA and defense scandals such as the leaking of a CIA agent’s name by Karl Rove and the torturing of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. The major cause of these problems has been dissention in the ranks. Department heads are operating on their own initiative disobeying orders from the President, thus, disrupting the ingress and egress of information and instructions from the White House causing a paralysis of the function of the U.S. government. So how did Kennedy clean up the CIA? So how did Kennedy show the defense department who’s boss?
Well, almost as soon as he was inaugurated Kennedy had to constantly struggle for power with the CIA. His first hurdle was the Bay of Pigs Invasion. As a newly elected president he felt he could not turn down a plan from the CIA senior hierarchy. So he went through with the invasion. But the CIA used faulty intelligence figures to entice him into giving the operation the go ahead. Kennedy later learned the Bay of Pigs Invasion needed the support of the U.S. military to succeed and the CIA knew this. So when the invasion was bogged down, and the CIA asked for troops Kennedy refused, CIA directors gasping around him, reddening in the face. His actions brought him heat from the Joint Chiefs. General Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said “pulling out the rug [on the invaders] was absolutely reprehensible, almost criminal.” Admiral Arleigh Burke, the Navy chief, fumed, “Mr. Kennedy is a very bad President.” Kennedy responded, “We’re not going to plunge into an irresponsible action just because a fanatical fringe in this country puts so-called national pride above national reason. Do you think I’m going to cause a nuclear exchange-for what? Because I was forced into doing something that I didn’t think was proper and right? Well, if you or anybody else thinks I am, he’s crazy.” Kennedy’s ability to quell internal controversies such as the Bay of Pigs fiasco allowed him to be able to effectively govern the United States. Why? Because every department head in Washington knew who was in charge, Mr. Kennedy (Lessons).
The war in Iraq is a blemish on Bush’s administration. Bush unlike Kennedy lacks the political backbone to get to the bottom of things in the intelligence agencies. Bush got the wool pulled over his eyes when it came to the weapons of mass destruction which turned out to just be the pride of old military men who wanted to get Saddam because they didn’t get the opportunity ten years before. But more important than Kennedy’s backbone was his handling of volatile situations not with military action but back channel diplomacy.
JFK strenuously made efforts to keep the country at peace in the face of equally ardent pressures from
Washington’s warriors to go to war. He faced Communist threats in Laos, Berlin, Vietnam, and
Cuba. Kennedy again and again found a way to sidestep war. The most famous of these steps was the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world has ever come to thermonuclear war. Kennedy’s Air Force Chief, General Curtis Lemay, told Kennedy to “Fry”
Cuba. But instead of relying on his advisors, which if he had I wouldn’t be typing right now, he pursued another path, a path of peace. He found his non-military solution in the back channels to the Kremlin. Through extensive negotiation he cut a deal with Khrushchev. In doing so Kennedy averted the world’s greatest crisis allowing the U.S. to exist as it is today and not radioactive ruble. Kennedy understood the importance of a nonmilitary solution saying, “We all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.” (Lessons)
George Bush uses America’s military might to display America’s power so that the world will conform to the “American Ideal.” George Bush is trying to eliminate tyranny from the planet. But is military power the only way? Kennedy understood that it was not only military might that mattered but the power of words, rhetoric coupled with American ideology.
To the world Kennedy presented the face of a man who “would pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.” Really Kennedy believed that military action was no solution to the cold war. Instead he believed in peace through strength saying, “For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.” In a later speech Kennedy reveals a revelation that future politicians should take to heart and that is that “We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, that we are only 6% of the world’s population, that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94% of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that there fore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.” If our current politicians took Kennedy’s words to heart we wouldn’t be spending billions of dollars and thousands of American lives on a people who don’t seem to want an American solution (Lessons).
Kennedy was the definition of a statesman. He understood the most effective way to demonstrate
America’s strength was not to threaten its enemies. It was to live up to the country’s democratic ideals. He was a warrior for peace. In one hand he carried a sword in the other an olive branch. His lessons that he has taught us are still relevant today and the next politician to learn from them will be the next profile in courage.
Talbot, David. “The Lessons of J.F.K..” Time Magazine 2 July 2007: 45-67.
Rash Refunds
February 10th, 2008 by ronburgandy in Uncategorized · No Comments
Most of a typical American’s wealth is tied up in bricks and mortar. So with the threat of house-price deflation looming many Americans are in a panic. Our brilliant politicians, who rarely need an excuse to shower grateful constituents with other people’s money, are proposing a $150 billion dollar stimulus package. So is this quick fix the way to bolster America’s floundering economy? No, this stimulus package is in principle a brace for our falling economy but in practice it will only flop like the 2001 and 2003 rebates.
The principal for the stimulus package is based on consumption. Consumption is meant to provide jobs to Americans. Americans, who are quite good at consumption, should do the job admirably. But will they consume the correct products for the benefit of the American economy? If Americans were to spend their money on pleasurable pursuits such as going out to eat or gambling the American economy would actually receive a large boost. According to a study by Regional Economic Models in Amherst, Massachusetts if Americans lived it up for the economy’s sake 4.7 million jobs would be created in sporting events, 4.1 million jobs would be created in restaurants, 3.3 million jobs would be created in gyms and beauty salons, 3.2 million jobs would be created in the gambling and amusement park industry, and 2.0 million jobs would be created in the jewelry industry (Stead).
Of course, that is the best case scenario. More than likely we will instead experience “Bush’s big gift to Wal-Mart.” In the past most Americans have spent the largest percentage of their rebates on food and clothing. After the 2001 tax rebates, consumers mostly bought food and nondurable goods such as clothing, according to a study cited by the Congressional Budget Office. Spending on food went up 2.7% and outlays for nondurable goods went up 3.2% soon after checks went out. Retailers in general are going to see about 66% of the total $150 billion dollar stimulus package and of that Wal-Mart alone is expected to see $5 billion. Therefore, the stimulus package will just be $150 billion spent on foreign goods. In turn more money will leave America and destroy the value of the dollar. A recent CNN poll (broadcast February 9) indicates that 46% of Americans will use the money to pay off debt, 28% will save the money, and only 26% will actually spend the money. Currently America is slowly being hung, suffocating from its large debt but the stimulus package does not remove the noose it only ties
America’s hands.
The stimulus package is like a strong cup of coffee that would jolt the economy but then fade rapidly leaving it worse than before. So how could $150 billion be better spent? Investing in public works projects such as bridges would create slower but longer lasting effects. Tax cuts for businesses to build factories would create jobs and create crucial insurance if a housing slump leads to a serious recession (bailout).
Despite the stimulus package’s many drawbacks it passed Friday, February 8. Politicians can never be stopped from buying votes with other people’s money except Marion Berry who voted against the package. With the package we will see an increase in the third quarter but after that it is only negative growth as far as the eye can see.
P.S. George you can still veto it.
Stead, Deborah. “Live it up, for the Economy’s Sake.” BusinessWeek 11 Feb 2008: 17.
e circle questions
February 9th, 2008 by ronburgandy in Uncategorized · 2 Comments
What does Ehrenreich learn about crime and poor, single women?
What does Ehrenreich mean by the term “Corporate Miserliness?”
Describe what Ehrenreich means by the advantage of a working husband?
Bonus: After finishing the book Ehrenreich’s style is most similar to which student in our class?
Is the Fair Tax Really Fair?
January 30th, 2008 by ronburgandy in Uncategorized · 1 Comment
The American national debt is growing at an unfathomable rate. Currently it is a little over 9 trillion dollars. Of course, careless spending has put the United States in this quagmire, but one must also look at the tax system which is also a contributor to the problem. Instead of stealing your money out of your wallet, the Fair Tax initiative taxes purchases not income. The Fair Tax would fix America’s broken tax system by more evenly spreading the tax load, encouraging investment, and closing the loopholes in our current tax system.
Today’s income tax system is progressive meaning the more you earn the higher rate you are taxed. The rates are either 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 28%, or 35%. With the Fair Tax proposal it is a whole different ball game - one with a fixed 23% sales tax. Advocates against the fair tax say it will shift the burden on the lower and middle classes. Mike Huckabee, a major supporter for the Fair Tax, says, “All of us would get a monthly rebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line.” But when Huckabee says “us” though he means every American not just those below the poverty line. Finally our democratic government would be granting true equality to all Americans no longer just in principle but also in practice; no longer would the government discriminate a citizen because of his or her wealth; no longer would the burden of taxes be unequally proportioned. The Fair Tax also provides 358 billion more dollars than does the current tax system. Of course, the wealthy would still be the natural benefactors funding the majority of the tax bill because they would still spend the most in the market. But with untaxed income Americans would be able to invest billions more into the market.
Good bye capital gains taxes. Under the Fair Tax there would be no capital gains taxes. Investors would be the main beneficiaries of the Fair Tax. Without pesky taxes on each trade or purchase or sale
Americas could create tax-free retirement accounts. With no capital gains taxes more investors, new investors, would get in the game. Also, with no capital gains taxes the United States would be a better place to conduct business, thus, attracting new foreign business. All the money which would be placed into the American market would do wonders for the current economy. The Wall Street boys will rejoice if the Fair Tax is passed. As Jeff Schnepper put it “a round of golf at Pebble Beach would cost them, but merely collecting dividends would not.”
Many people in the United States completely avoid income taxes. Those are the drug dealers and the pimps and the illegal aliens. All illegal activities would be taxed because with the Fair Tax consumption, not income is taxed. Now when a drug dealer buys a fur coat he will be taxed 23% on it. In turn then he pays for the police that come and pick him up. Currently illegal immigrants are leaching off Social Security and Medicare funds without paying a penny in, but with the Fair Tax everything they buy in Estados Unidos will have a 23% tax. A tax like that might deter future surges in illegal immigration because there is no longer tax evasion. Also, America has 40 million tourists visit every year. With the Fair Tax they will see America but also leave something for us to remember them by, a few billion dollars.
Our current tax system is not adequate to propel the U.S. into the twenty-first century. What
America needs is a new tax, a fair tax. The Fair Tax will abolish all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes. At the same time though it will generate 358 billion more than the current tax system and will be a catalyst to the economy.
Failing Our Geniuses
January 16th, 2008 by ronburgandy in Uncategorized · 2 Comments
.
The American comprehensive education today has become more focused on raising students up to an expectable minimum rather than letting students excel to their maximum potential. Thanks to the Bush Administrations “No Child Left Behind” policy schools are most worried about the students at the bottom, the stragglers of the classroom. Therefore, it inhibits America’s genius with remedial instruction in order to insure that everyone is taught to an acceptable adequate level. America is squandering its greatest resource for future prosperity – brilliant minds.
America’s brightest students are about average when ranked against other nation’s high achievers. In a recent testing of the world’s brightest young minds U.S. students scored the same as the Estonians. Nations such as Japan, Hungary, and even Singapore scored significantly higher than the
U.S. With results like those obviously American high intelligence students are not receiving the necessary teaching to allow them to reach their potential. Five percent of high caliber students even dropout of high school because of boredom. The American education system is so backward it is forcing talented students out not in.
Despite these substantial warnings to the American education not a single level of government is willing to do anything about it. The entire budget of the U.S. state, local, and federal for gifted education is $800 million. It is miniscule amount compared to the $8 billion budget for the education of the mentally retarded. It doesn’t make sense to spend ten times as much to bring low-achieving students up to proficiency than we do to nurture those with the greatest potential. Ironically, today, in such a pork-laden Congress we can’t even match the amount of money spent on the mentally retarded for the education of the next Einstein. In fact, in recent years the amount of funding has decreased. Federal funding has decreased from $11.3 million to $7.6 million. States have also cut funding. Michigan cut its gifted education budget from $5 million to $500,000. Apparently America isn’t willing to put out the fiscal resources necessary to regain its rightful, center stage, in the academic world. Lucky for America there are private schools which allow fortunate students to escape the proficiency of the modern public education.
What will the less fortunate do; how will they reach their potential; potential which would allow them not become members of a vicious cycle; a cycle of an ever increasing financial gap between the haves and the have nots?
The answer is separate schools for smarter students that would facilitate all their needs to nurture their potential. Schools such as the Arkansas Math and Science school have been tremendous successes. Other public, tuition-free, schools are popping up all over the nation most of which are actually privately-funded schools such as The Davidson Academy in Reno, Nevada. The Davidson
Academy was founded by Robert and Janice Davidson in order to help the nation’s brightest pupils. So far it has been a great success educating over forty-five of America’s prodigies. It will also serve as a model for other schools because forty-five prodigies is only a small fraction of what America has to offer. Many critics oppose the system because of its high cost.
It may be an old cliché but you can’t put a price on an education. The best example of this is Bill Gates. Bill Gates was fortunate enough to receive a private high school education. Consider that there are many others like Bill Gates who aren’t fortunate enough to be able to afford a private education. Do we simply say to them sorry, tough luck? No, this is America the land of opportunity, and we will find a way for every student to reach his or her potential.
America since its beginning has always contained many beautiful minds. Jefferson, Franklin, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Edison, for example, some with private educations others with public educations, but the important thing is that they have always propelled America in the world economy. Now though the
U.S. is self-destructing by destroying our own potential by poorly educating our gifted students.
Cloud, John. “Failing Our Geniuses.” Time Magazine 27 August 2007: 40-47.
Rhetorical Devices
November 25th, 2007 by ronburgandy in Uncategorized · 1 Comment
Friends, classmates, peers since the beginning of time man has used his words to influence his fellowman. But if you wish to be the influencer and not the influenced you had better know the rhetorical devices used in persuasion. So here are just a few devices to bolster your understanding of rhetoric.
1) June 4, 1940 (a speech by Winston Churchill)
Anaphora
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender
2) F. Scott Fitzgerald This Side of Paradise
Allusion
There at the head of the white platoon marched Allenby, the football captain, slim and defiant, as if aware that this year the hopes of the college rested on him, that his hundred and sixty pounds were expected to dodge to victory through the heavy blue and crimson lines.
The blue and crimson lines refer to Yale’s and Harvard’s football teams.
3) Yakov Smirnoff
Chiasmus
“In America, you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, The Party can always find you!”
4) Yoda (Star Wars)
Anadiplosis
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
5) Ben Stiller as White Goodman in Dodgeball
Alliteration
You’re gonna lose with your losers in Las Vegas La Fleur.
These examples should help you the next time someone tries to convince you to do their laundry. In fact, maybe you should try to convince him to do your laundry. All jokes aside these devices are very important to your social status and should be studied carefully.
Research Sources
November 8th, 2007 by ronburgandy in Alternative Energy · No Comments
Belkin, Douglas . “Ethanol glut causes angst in farm towns.” Arkansas Democrat Gazette 5 November 2007: 1D, 4D.
“Exxon Mobil’s View of the World: it’s Still About Oil.” Opisethanol 6 November 2007 6 November 2007 .
Kram, Jerry W.. “From Concept to Commercialization.” Biomass Magazine November 2007: 18-23.
Schill, Susane Retka. “The Fiscer-Tropsch/Fat Connection .” Biomass Magazine November 2007: 30-35.
Ethanol Schmethanol
October 14th, 2007 by ronburgandy in Alternative Energy · No Comments
Ethanol has been around almost since the beginning of time. So why haven’t we been using it? The truth is ethanol has many flaws. Its energy to mass ratio is a third that of gasoline. When Henry Ford first experimented with car engines he tried ethanol. He rejected it. Ethanol corrodes engines because it absorbs water from the atmosphere unless mixed with a petroleum product. So ethanol can not stand by itself. Then why are we trying it again? The answer is simple. Ethanol is environmentally friendly. Every Washington hopeful is trying to piggy back their way into office on ethanol by supporting it. DuPont and BP have explored butanol. Biobutanol is a natural alcohol derived from plants, but because it has two more carbon atoms it solves some of ethanol’s problems. It has 85% the mass to energy ratio of gasoline. Biobutanol’s two more carbons also make it less prone to absorb water and corrode engine parts. Codexis, a small biotechnology firm based in Redwood City, California, controls most of the important patents for what is known as molecular evolution. They were first approached by a big chemical company to develop an enzyme that could create octanol, an eight carbon alcohol. Codexis now though is more focused on creating molecules even more chemically similar to petrol. This new type of biopetrol has a leg up on regular petrol though. Unlike petrol, in which each batch from the refinery is chemically different from the next biopetrol could be produced with exactly the same each time. They use synthetic biology to turn microbes into factories for fatty acids containing 18-20 carbons. They also plan to produce what they call “biocrude” containing 18-30 carbons. This biocrude could be fed directly into existing oil refineries, without any need to modify them.
Biopetrol and biocrude seem to have fixed every flaw of a biofuel. They can be refined at existing facilities; they perform at the same level, if not better than gasoline; they are derived from plants so all the carbon dioxide produced was once in the air and will be recycled again. Whether biofuels will ever be able to compete with fossil fuels I don’t know, but with the right mixture of politics and economics and technology I believe they will succeed.
Ethanol, schmethanol.” The Economist 5 October 2007: 84-85.
