Private Figures Should Keep Their Good Reputation Until Conviction

As mentioned here at McCarthyism.com a few days ago about the theatrics of the SOTU, here’s another prime example:

Sulkowicz Let Down by Obama Speech

New York Senator Kristen Gillenbrand invited as her guest Emma Sulkowicz who has gained fame as a performance artist carrying her mattress around Columbia University in New York City to bring awareness to the issue of campus sexual violence. The article is also a good example of how being able to talk back using the comments section is an interesting way to see a newstory through other people’s eyes (whether you agree or not with their viewpoints). The premise of bringing Sulkowicz to the SOTU to raise awareness seemed to fail as most people in Congress and government did not know who she was or why she had gained a certain degree of fame. Sulkowicz was disappointed that Obama did not call attention to campus sexual assaults, but really it would be impossible for the President to speak on every serious issue facing the country/world within the short of amount of time alloted for the speech (and shorter attention spans of the public). That is not to downplay the issue of campus sexual assaults, but only to say there are probably other issues that grab the attention of everyone in the country such as jobs, war, health care and the economy.

But what is most worrisome about Sulkowicz’s case is the accompanying theatrics itself. When a woman makes a charge of being raped, her identity is shielded by the media unless she publicizes it herself, as Sulkowicz did. That’s fine. The problem is the guy she accused of raping her has had his name splashed all over the media even after he was exonerated by the police. To be accused of rape or sexual assault is one of the most harmful statements to a person’s reputation. It should be a law that people suspected of a crime should not have their reputations destroyed before receiving due process. Sulkowicz’s continuing to accuse a classmate of rape after his exoneration (which means there was not enough evidence for an indictment, but does not mean she is necessarily lying either) is libelous; but it is the media’s fault in printing his name in the first place. The law should be that printing a suspect’s name before a conviction (even under indictment) should be illegal with stiff monetary penalties for publishing the person’s name. The infamous perpetrator walks done by police for the media cameras should also be illegal; they harken back to the barbaric time of locking people in stocks for public embarrassment. If people are truly innocent until proven guilty, then grant them the dignity of privacy and reputation until they are convicted by a court of law; the current system is a sham and a shame of justice.

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150125.htm

On Reduced Tuition at Community Colleges

One of the proposals in the State of the Union was to reduce tuition costs for students going to US community colleges. The Associate’s degree has become the key for many Americans who want to learn a skill or obtain a certificate to get a better job, or just a job, period. Community colleges also serve as the gateway for students who perhaps were not as academically prepared in high school to get a higher education footing before transferring to a four-year institution. I don’t think many people would understate the importance of community college to society for job preparation and upward mobility for many Americans. Therefore it sounds reasonable to make the tuition costs more affordable for current and prospective students… but there is a trap within this seemingly noble plan.

When the government (local/state/federal) provides more financial aid to students, then higher education institutions increase tuition. The more the beast gets fed, the more hungry the beast becomes for more money. It has become a never-ending cycle that has led to higher education tuition increases far out-stripping inflation or any rational measure (this is even moreso at 4-year schools than 2-year ones). The sad fact is most of the additional revenue has not gone to classrooms, but instead to bloated and useless administrators/staff. Over 70% of instructors at community colleges are part-time adjuncts, which means they are not able to form close relationships with the institution or its students. This is compounded by the fact that community college students are the type who need the most assistance and would benefit from it. Unfortunately accrediting boards are cowards, and don’t call the community colleges ‘leadership’ on this disservice to students. Accreditors are only interested in seeing mounds of paperwork with dotted “i’s” and crossed “t’s” as well as a check that is ready to be cashed. It should not be too much to ask for no more than 40% of a community college’s instructors be part-timers, and even that percentage is too high. Imagine if your high school teachers were part-timers shuttling around from institution to institution to teach classes. A good school primarily needs three things: good teachers, good students, and good resources (labs, software, books, etc.). The administrators themselves are, for the most part, superfluous, but they draw the largest salaries for contributing almost nothing in most cases, and they love the sound of more government flowing in so they can keep raising tuition without providing additional value. Students should protest this as it is their hard-earned money being spent for tuition and then wasted at these institutions. And if it’s financial aid being wasted, then it’s still your money derived from sales and income taxes. Unfortunately, we live in a culture dominated by apathy and despair, so even with money on the line, no one questions how their invested money gets spent.

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150123.htm

Puerile Theatrics of the State of the Union Address

Are the theatrics of calling out to special guests in the balcony something the American people really want? It’s childish so it’s hard to imagine a nation of adults could take it seriously… yet there it is year after year: a show spectacle a la Broadway of staged events that are meant to be perceived as smoothly spontaneous. Why can’t the state of the union be an intelligent and sober recounting by the chief executive of the state of the nation with his/her prescriptions for the year? Part of the problem is that the US has no royalty to perform ceremonial functions of state, so the President has to take part in meaningless rituals such as staging White House Easter egg hunts and pardoning of turkeys at Thanksgiving. There needs to be a separation of the theater of the White House from the hard business of day-to-day governing and policy-making. The State of the Union has become another proverbial tree-lighting ceremony without real substance.

The Republican “response” was hardly any better. In fact, it’s hardly a response at all, it’s a pre-scripted (i.e. written before the President’s address) speech that offered no riposte to POTUS, but instead offered the opposition party’s policy papers. Why can’t we have a serious debate? Why does it have to be so puerile with petty bickering? Why can’t some of these politicians act and speak like adults? The US Republic is “led” by substandard actors reading from scripts that pander to a public that is apathetic, ignorant and too often beholden to imagined spectacles on their view-screens.

When will there be an adult in the house?

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150122.htm