The Path to Utopian Education

   It's no secret that the education system in America is suffering, and graduates are feeling less and less prepared to take on the real world. Not only do they feel less qualified than previous generations, but they are also less able to take on the everyday challenges of the world from things like home and car repair and maintenance, financial planning and issues, as well as how to deal with grief, disappointment, and even with those of whom they simply disagree with. After going to college for over 3 years, I have noticed quite a lot of things wrong with our education system and how it prepares us for the real world. Not only is there a lot that needs to be added to better our education system, a lot also needs to be taken away. First I would like to point out the problems with our education system and then present what I see to be a plausible solution.

   My biggest problem with college is the constant focus on the past. I do understand the importance of understanding history, but what I'm talking about is a bit different. History classes seem to be losing focus on what is important history and what is not. In each of my 3 or 4 history or history based classes, our main focus in class has been what the professor deems important or necessary; in each case this meant if the professor did a study or wrote a book on a certain period of time in history, or if the teacher visited a historic location, they thought their students should learn about it too. Even if what was being taught was important, that importance was not explained and it was frustrating for me as a student to be forced to memorize the events of which I didn't know the significance. I got tired of learning about the names of Chinese tigers and African tall tales.
   Not only did I find the focus of history in each class tedious, but learning outdated techniques and materials just for the sake of history and progression. As a student in the electrical engineering program, I understand the need for many aspects of the required classes. However, when my textbook tells me that the technique being taught is an outdated and unused technique, I start to feel like I am wasting my time. You can learn about how things used to be done without having to learn how to do them. I found it ironic that in each class that requires programming they focus on avoiding unnecessary repetition and useless info, yet they are constantly teaching me redundant information and useless techniques.
   Another issue I see is that of the time required to finish each degree. Don't we want to get people into the workfield faster? If so, why are we making it such a long process? In relation to what I stated above, there are numerous required courses that are not necessary or have no relation or importance to the actual subject of the degree. My brother is studying neuroscience, yet some of his required classes include calculus and physics. Not only did he feel that those classes had no connection to his degree, but during his calculus class, in an attempt to get as much out of the class as possible, each time he asked for the practical application of what he was being taught, the teacher's response was always "you will learn the practical applications of these situations in the next level math classes" which of course were NOT required for his degree. Why are students being required to learn things that they know they will never use?

   One of my personal frustrations with the system is that of textbooks. Not only are a large portion of them overpriced, but some teachers seem to use them for their own profit instead of for the benefit of the class and students. In many of my classes we were required to purchase a new copy of the textbook or lecture material and looking back, there was no benefit to buying a new book because it came with no online access code or anything similar. It seems the teachers just wanted more money for their own written materials and they knew they would get no monetary benefit from the circulation of used books. In my physics class, our teacher got a little greedy and sold his text book for $2,600! It was a required textbook for the class and he updated it every year to try and discourage the reselling of his book. After doing some research I found previous students who said the material was exactly the same in each edition so I found the cheapest copy I could which ended up being a rental of an older version for $400. Either way I felt ripped off and come to find out, I rarely used the book over the course of the semester anyway because it was so poorly written. Students are already struggling to pay tuition, and it makes it much worse when the cost of textbooks is close to tuition each semester. Is this not a form of bait-and-switch? I've even had teachers who didn't offer their syllabus in class or online for free and made students pay $20 just to see it. High school had it right where you were lent a textbook for each class and if you didn't return it or you returned it in poor condition you had to pay, otherwise, there was nothing out of pocket. I would even be fine paying a bit more in tuition so that the university can cover the cost of writing and printing textbooks, but not to the point where it becomes a main form of income for them. I'm even fine with professors advertising their books in class to students and offering extra credit for purchasing those books and writing a paper on it or something similar, but when the teacher requires students to purchase their book that ends up being a form of profit for them then our classes start to become costly, unfair, and dictatorial.
   Lastly, our education system has come to focus too much on written tests, and less on tests of application and know-how abilities. A famous quote by Albert Einstein says "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." When it comes to math tests I do just fine because I can compute and solve problems using math and reason, but when it comes to a test like psychology or history that requires pure memorization, my scores start to decline. The majority of tests don't test who is the most skilled and knowledgeable about a certain subject, but who is the best at memorizing things they hear or read. In numerous classes I have done the best on labs and experiments, but been near the worst on the written tests (which I believe too often hold too much weight towards students' grades). This also always left me feeling like my grade did not represent how I felt about my abilities in that subject.

   One thing I hear from everyone I discuss these problems with is "well we've been doing this for years and if there were a better way, we would have found it by now. This is the best we've got, it is how it is." Not only is this response pessimistic, it's also very wrong. Though we have made millions of technological advances over the last few years, we still know that there is always room for improvement. The reason why education hasn't moved away from it's old ways and innovated is because it doesn't have the same pressure to do so as a tech company does. Apple has competitors, and those competitors have customers. Apple isn't going to feel content with 1 million customers so they are going to do what they can to get more, and if they get more they have to be taking them from their competitors. The more they expand, the more money they can get. When it comes to a university, there are only so many seats. They don't have to compete with other colleges for the same students to the same extent a cell phone company competes with other cell phone companies. If a university continues to get more applications than they have seats available then they feel no need to change or innovate because they don't need more students.   Schools also get government funding, subsidies, and grants which are not dependent on innovation or curriculum taught. Universities aren't affected by a free market system in the same way that product based companies are.

   The easiest way for schools to determine what is necessary and what is unnecessary is is to simply ask "why?" Why are they teaching that subject, or chapter? What practical application does it have, if any? Why are you being tested on that material? The first thing that needs to be done is to prioritize. The general education and core classes seem to consist more of things that you MIGHT come across in the workplace rather than things that you WILL come across. The required classes need to be cut down by up to 50%. Not just general education classes but the degree required classes also fall into the category of "rarely useful". I have been told numerous times that I, as an electrical engineer, will have no use for knowing C++ programming, yet it is a required class. There are probably a dozen or more classes like this so I propose that instead of requiring each one, making them electives. For example, if there are 30 required classes currently, determine the 12-15 most important, and have 6 to 9 required electives. Not only will this help people graduate sooner but it also allows people in each program to choose what within that subject they want to focus on. If a university doesn't want to lower their tuition with these types of changes, then they can use the new excess gained through less classes to invest in more student projects and new equipment. In the last 20 years we have made major technological advances, yet in my electrical engineering class we are using 20 year old equipment which is not acceptable for a top level university. Also, a program could be arranged in which those who have graduated from the university, while in the workplace or searching for a job, if needed, can return to the university at any time to take other electives to help them in their career or refresh their knowledge on previously taken classes. This encourages schools to focus on better teaching to try and avoid graduated students returning (though it would not be costly if they did.)
   As for the subject of general education classes, I believe we need to do a complete overhaul. The argument in favor of general education classes is always that they are to help us be "well rounded", to which my response is, whose definition of well rounded does that follow? Instead of requiring 3 history classes (US history, world history, humanities, etc.), why not 1? We can then eliminate classes to help people graduate faster or replace them with classes that would help what I see as being well rounded, such as money management, strengthening your marriage relationship, how to care for and raise a child, or how to maintain and repair your car, home, and yard. One of the biggest complaints I hear from students are in regard to general education classes, not only because they are unnecessarily hard, but they are unnecessary period. The 20 or so required general education classes need to be condensed to focus on basic necessities of life, such as math, language, finances, and other things that we actually will come across on a daily basis. Not only should we decrease the amount of required general education classes to 10 or less, we should also focus on more important, applicable subjects for those classes.

   In regards to written tests, we should get rid of them in all major-specific classes, if not altogether. Because classes such as history are classes of pure memorization, I can't think of an alternative way to test, but when someone is learning a skill, they shouldn't be required to TELL the university how good they are through written test results; rather, they should be able to SHOW how good they are through application of what they learned. The only class I have had in all my years of college that has gotten this right is my computer programming class (despite my opinion of it being an unnecessary class.) Each of our exams aren't written tests asking about how to code or the history of coding, but are simply a test of whether or not we can code. They give us a task and require we write a code to accomplish that task. Not only have I done well in this class because of this, it has also helped my confidence in the subject due to me being able to avoid the chance of scoring poorly again on a written exam on a subject I know (or thought I knew) that I was skilled at. In high school my physics class was graded on how well we could use the physics we learned and apply it to in class experiments. In college, my physics class is graded on how well I can do homework problems and written tests. There are labs also required in the class but they contribute to less than 10% of my grade. Despite the content of both physics classes being very similar, I did much better in high school physics, and I have done each of the labs in my college physics flawlessly, but my grades in my college physics class don't reflect my ability to do physics in real world applications due to the numerous tests and homework assignments. These types of things make people get discouraged, lose motivation and confidence, and feel like the fish in Albert Einstein's analogy.
Another point to the subject of tests is the fact that students are often not allowed any materials to help them. In each of my calculus classes we have not been allowed a calculator and in my physics class we were expected to memorize over 200 equations for the tests. This is not practical and forces unnecessary memorization and study time focused strictly on memorizing equations instead of learning how to use those equations. In some cases, textbooks and the internet should be allowed, because that is what we have access to in the real world.  Without change it is very impractical and unrealistic.
   To summarize, degree specific classes should be more specific, and general education class options should consist of more topics to help us be better citizens and "well rounded" in everyday situations. Class lectures should consist of less long lectures and more experiments and applying the lecture material. Less written tests should be administered and more application tests should be standard. Textbooks should not be used as a form of business and income, rather for its intended purpose, which is to help educate the students.  And finally, each class curriculum should be condensed and concentrated on things that are important, useful, and applicable. Through these means I can foresee a smarter generation with more skills, less student loans (due to less time in school), and more confident citizens.

To Be Made Whole

   As Christ was on his way to Jerusalem during his ministry, he was met by ten lepers.  They said to Christ:

"'Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.'  And when he saw them, he said unto them, 'Go shew yourselves unto the priests.'  And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed.  And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan.  And Jesus answering said, 'Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?'  There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger.  And he said unto him, 'Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.'" (Luke 17:13-19, quotations added)
   This concept of becoming whole has been on my mind lately.  What does it mean to be made whole and how do we achieve this?  Christ commands us that we must be perfected through Him, but is this how we become whole?  Though Christ does want us to use the Atonement and strive for perfection through Him, becoming whole is something we must work on at a personal level.  When Christ asks us to give ourselves unto Him, he expects all of us to be presented.  Just as when you ask for an apple, you don't expect only half an apple.  However, being made whole as a human involves many aspects of our lives becoming whole, not just one.  When you want an Apple iPhone, you don't expect half a screen, a whole processor, one of four functioning buttons, and three fourths of the electrical components.  To be made whole, we must first take a step back and consider the main aspects of life: physical, mental, spiritual, emotional, social, and intellectual.

   Physical

   "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?  If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." (1 Corinthians 3:16-17)

   In a world that seems to continually become more and more corrupt we start hearing many claims that I imagine make God disappointed.  One of those claims is "my body my choice".  Obviously we are in control of our body (most the time) so how could this claim be false?  From a logical standpoint, you don't own something until you purchase it, or it is given to you.  I believe that a common misconception is that God gave us our bodies, thus it is now ours, but throughout the scriptures God reminds us that our bodies are a possession of God.  "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" (1 Corinthians 6:19)

  God has loaned us our bodies, and he has the power to take them away.  Until the resurrection, our bodies and our spirits are not inseparable.  God gives us many gifts throughout our lives, and he expects us to take care of each one.  To become physically whole, we must also break this down into various pieces.  Among other things, we must treat our bodies right, we must learn to overcome physical lusts, and we must avoid flaunting our bodies and avoid immodesty.  Through various means, not only can we become healthy, but we can treat our bodies as a temple and become whole.

   Mental

   One major aspect of becoming mentally whole is ensuring your mind is clear and strong.  Alcohol and other drugs affect our physical health negatively, but they also hurt and retard our mental abilities.  With our bodies, God gave us an amazing brain, more complex, more creative, and more able than any computer in the world.  These innate abilities can only be fully harnessed through mental clarity and mental strength.  I believe another aspect also includes mental attentiveness and awakeness.  We must be aware of what is going on around us, pay attention to the people in our lives, and be sincere in everything we do.

   Spiritual

   In church we hear hundreds if not thousands of different ways to become spiritually strengthened.  Often we focus too much on spiritual "strength" and neglect other aspects of our lives.  With that said, it is as equally important as any other category and must be a high priority.  Being spiritually whole consists of coming closer to God through church, prayer, and sincere scripture study, being morally clean in thought and in action, not judging others, and serving others in any and every aspect we can.  "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." (Romans 8:6)

   These first three sections of becoming whole can be summed up in the last section of the scout oath: "To help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

   Emotional

   Being emotionally whole doesn't only involve our own emotional strength and stability, but being emotionally aware of those around us.  For our own emotional strength we must learn to feel love for our fellow men, oust hate in our lives, and avoiding taking offense from those who are also imperfect.  The idea of political correctness was invented to protect those who are emotionally unstable and, while we must be aware and loving toward those who may not have sufficient emotional strength, we must also strive to keep our own emotions in check, and not force them onto those with whom we disagree.  "Master, which is the great commandment in the law?  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matthew 22:36-39)

   Social

This is the topic in which I believe the most confusion in our society exists.  Hypocrisy, discrimination, one-sidedness are just a few problems that exist in our society, most of which surface amongst debates and discussions.  The best way to build social wholeness is to consistently and constantly examine and assess our social interactions.  Was I hypocritical?  Was I unfair?  Did I listen and consider differing opinions.  The easiest way to depict an image of social incompleteness is to think of how one-sided we often may be.  Just as everything has at least 2 sides, to be socially whole we must not be one-sided.

   Intellectual

   God wants us to be educated in all matters.  He wants us to strive for knowledge to benefit us, our families, and those around us.  The technologies and conveniences of our generation have been brought about by those who took the time and put forth the effort to better themselves to better society.  Our intellect will help us get jobs, deal with life, and solve problems.  When you are taking a test, God won't give you the answers you seek just because you are spiritual, rather he will help you if you put forth the effort to study, and to know for yourself.  Being intellectually whole means being knowledgeable, logical, and always seeking to know more.  "And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come." (Doctrine & Covenants 130:19)

   Becoming whole is not just an achievement of overall improvement, but is a constant for which to work for and strive.  The reservoir of our perfection has a leak and must constantly be filled to help us reach our potential, and to reach heaven.  Only through constant examination and correction can we become whole through our own efforts, and through Christ.  "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.  And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.  If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." (Galatians 5:22-25)

The Right to Protest

   If you weren't aware of all the post-election protests, I don't know if I should applaud you for your disconnect from the corrupt media, or to question you for your intentional disconnect with reality.  Regardless, Democrats have taken to the streets to protest the President elect Donald Trump.  When attacked or ridiculed for protesting, the Democrats "cite" the first amendment: "we have the right to protest." I didn't remember there being a right to protest being in the bill of rights so I looked again:

I was right, there is no right to protest in our bill of rights.  What we commonly interpret as "the right to protest" in the first amendment is "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Let's dissect this for a moment. First of all, the word "peaceably" should stand out.  Most of the protests have been peaceful, but for those that have become riots, the same claims of "the right to protest" have been used as justification.  The incorrect assumption that a protest or riot is justifiable under our laws if you have a reasoning behind it has emerged.

   Next is the word "assemble".  Gathering in groups for a legal cause is protected under the Constitution; using these gatherings to illegally impede traffic, vandalize property, or disturb the peace is not protected.  Just because you legally assemble doesn't mean that everything you do as an assembly is protected.

   The next examination is in regards to petitions.  This is a way for governing bodies (government, businesses, etc.) to recognize what those under it's reach of influence support or object to.  However, a common misconception is that if a petition reaches a stated or unstated minimum that those whom it is addressed to must accept it and include/regulate it as policy, rule, or law.  A petition for Gary Johnson to be included in the debates reached about 1 million signatures.  To most people, they reached an arbitrary minimum and felt it unfair that Gary wasn't included in the debates because of their petition.  What they didn't understand is, first, their petition is only for recognition, and second, Gary Johnson didn't have the stated minimum of support to be in the debates.  Likewise, Democrats have a petition which as of today (11/13/2016) has approximately 3 million signatures to try and force the electors to switch their vote to Hillary.  This is doing what a petition is meant for, which again is recognition, but the purpose seems to differ.  Even if the petition reaches more signatures than votes Donald Trump got, it doesn't require the government to obey it, rather simply to recognize it.  If Democrats didn't want Trump for President, they should have took more action before the election, not after.

   Finally, let's examine the final piece, "redress of grievances." The point of all of this is when someone has been dealt with unfairly to get recognition of the governing body and to help amplify their voice.  It is to help us solve problems of injustice, not a difference of opinion.  The founding fathers wanted us to have the power to keep those in power in check.  The protests being displayed have nothing to do about solving problems or dealing with injustice because Donald Trump isn't President yet, he hasn't enacted any laws, nor has he had economic effect on anyone not employed by him.  If we interpret the first amendment with it's literal and intended definition, the protests are not protected and not justified, and are illegal.

   "You're just saying this because you disagree with us! Republicans have protested as well!" True but the difference is that most Republicans seem to better understand the Constitution.  The biggest modern Republican protest was "the 9-12 project" initiated by Glenn Beck.  Approximately 1.4 million protestors came before the capital building in Washington DC to protest Obama trying to divide the country.  They felt he was intentionally trying to create hatred between Republicans and Democrats.  They also protested his failing policies and his illegal executive orders.  Following the protest, police reported that no violence was reported during or after the protest, traffic was not impeded, no vandalism was found, and not even the smallest amount of litter was found.  The largest Democratic protest was at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.  Hundreds of thousands of Democrats appeared in Chicago in opposition to Democratic presidential nominees' policies and opinions regarding the Vietnam war.  These protests became violent and required between 10,000-15,000 policemen to dissolve the riots that ensued.  Hundreds were injured and many people were murdered including John F. Kennedy's brother and Martin Luther King Jr.  Though the number of Democratic protestors was presumably less than half of Republicans in their respective protests, violence was completely absent in those of Republicans.  This is not just a comparison between two protests, but a historical trend for the protests of each party.

   I'm all for the rights in the first amendment because I like being able to voice my opinions and opposition to things and people I disagree with.  However, I also believe that our rights shouldn't be abused or they may be taken from us.  You have the right to drive a car if you have a license but that right is taken if you are negligent, use it for illegal purposes, or endanger those around you.  Let us be a tolerant, peaceful people who use logic.  Let us unify as a country and allow our democratic process to lead us to what it may.  If you oppose Trump, do so in a legal, peaceful way, and in the correct situations.  Let's be a smarter people, and help make America great again!

Voting according to characteristics that matter

   This year we are privileged (sarcasm) with presumably one of the craziest elections in history.  We have the choice between a corrupt criminal in Hillary Clinton, a narcissistic chauvinist in Donald Trump, two candidates who are incompetent in the way government works in Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, and a credential-less, yet smart, moral man in Evan McMullin.  If you read or watch anything political online or in the news it's likely you've seen hundreds of comparisons between candidates, as well as random opinions regarding different candidates.  When choosing who to vote for, however, we have to be able to sift out the useless information thrown at us and decide what is valuable.  In short, we should focus on policy more than personality, yet often we start debating what we view as pros or cons in a candidate's personality.  This should be left out of the discussion.  To start, let's examine the useless information that is thrown at us that we need to disregard.

   Let's get what I consider to be the most illogical argument out of the way: "vote for a winner."  I am absolutely tired of seeing all the polls.  With polls from more liberal networks such as MSNBC and CNN we always see Hillary ahead, in more neutral or conservative networks such as Fox, we see Trump ahead.  Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have put out articles or ads that show their poll numbers that "clearly" show them ahead of their opponent and tell you that you should vote for the expected winner of the election.  Unless you are placing bets it shouldn't matter to you whom the projected winner is.  If we had someone as corrupt and as evil as Hitler running, and somehow he was leading in the polls (sound like any candidate?), would you vote for him? No!  Because I am going to assume that you aren't evil, you don't enjoy murder, and you want what's best for your country.

  

   While vetting Gary Johnson I came across a few people's opinions on his character.  When debating with people against marijuana, the point was brought up that you are much more likely to have a heart attack after smoking marijuana than you would otherwise.  Immediately Gary Johnson grabs his chest and falls to the ground while faking a heart attack.  Someone in the comments of the video said something to the effect of "Gary Johnson just won my vote; I want someone with a sense of humor in the White House." Twitter followers also threw in their similar remarks:

I personally think Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were hilarious Presidents, but this (clearly) in no way helped their ability as a President nor did it affect their policies. Both reflected similar or less effective policies of other Democratic Presidents.  Neither gained more support from Americans AFTER they went in office, and neither were good Presidents for helping the economy, international relations, national security, or really anything.

   Another weightless argument is a candidate's identity, i.e. race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  Sure, we want to see a variety of people being President, but the only reason why I would consider voting for someone who is black, as opposed to white is if his/her policies are policies that I can agree with MORE than the other candidate. Same thing goes for the opposite situation, as well as any other difference in identity among candidates. If the only candidates available were one male and one female, I would only vote for the female for the purpose of variety if and only if the two candidates’ policies were exactly the same. If I agree with the male candidate's policies more, I will vote for him. If I agree with the female candidate's policies more, I'll vote for her.  This should be obvious but Obama's campaign was trying to get voters based off of Obama being black, and Hillary's campaign is trying to get voters based on her being a female. The quality and policies of a candidate should always trump the identity of a candidate.

   Let's dive into the part of the discussion that should be obvious: the valuable characteristics.  Policy is an obvious one and should be the one we view as most important.  On top of policy, however, are other characteristics that will have a large effect on a candidate's presidency.  Temperament is one that is brought up often, especially when we talk about the President being the Commander-in-Chief.  We don't want someone crazy, or someone with a short fuse to be behind the nuclear missile launch button.  However, if the President says "FIRE!" there is nothing that says that the missiles will undoubtedly be launched.  There is a period of time of discussion with the military general and others before a final decision is made.  The president does not, has not, and will not ever, hold the sole power over nuclear launch protocol. Thus, policy is still weighted more than temperament.

   We also don't want someone who is incompetent behind the button for obvious reasons.  Even if they have a good temperament, their stupidity or lack of logic can also lead to rash, stupid, or knee-jerk decisions.  Just think of Homer the nuclear physicist.

Homer behind the button

   One characteristic that is overlooked is health.  While Bernie Sanders was running, many were concerned about his health due to his age.  He, however, was very healthy and had doctor's notes to prove it.  The reason why this is important is because the person we choose as President (assuming they are actually going to work and not just play golf or vacation while in office) has to be able to keep up with the demand of job.  Traveling, going to meetings, dealing with middle-of-the-night situations; these things can wear a person down.  If they can't handle it and they get some type of ailment, then there is a period of time in which they become unable to work which can hurt our country if it comes during a dire time.  Hillary is clearly not healthy, Trump seems to be healthy but he is a bit older than a lot of candidates of previous years, and Gary Johnson will probably have a heart attack due to his large consumption of marijuana (semi-sarcasm).

   Last of all, diplomacy and honesty.  We want a President who is a good public figure and will do in private what they say they will do in public (if it's a good thing of course).  On top of this, we want someone who can have good foreign relations and make the US look good.  Dishonesty speaks volumes about one's character and can show how unstable or how untrustworthy a candidate may be.  We need to dive deep into their history to see how honest they have been in the past, both the recent past and who they were 10+ years ago.

  This is not the finite list of things to focus on and the things to disregard but I hope it gives you a good base for how you should prioritize characteristics when considering a candidate.  The policies and history of each candidate should be of the most importance which is what makes this election so difficult.  No candidate has a good, or a clear past, and each candidates' policies are hard to believe because of their pasts.  When pitted with this predicament many people resort to looking at the pointless characteristics.  Instead, if all characteristics that do matter fail, or are too unclear to aide your decision making process, then consider their morals.  This isn't the first category to test a candidate, but it may be the last.

Detecting debating behaviors

   After watching the final Presidential debate, I have learned a few more things about debating behavior.  If you haven't already, check out what I said about it in my first blog post here.  One thing that was abundantly clear is that Hillary would panic when damning evidence against her was brought up, such as the emails released by WikiLeaks.  When someone is in a debate that they don't have enough points, statistics, or facts to win, they resort to a few different tactics, most of which are induced by a panic of "not losing".  The reason why this is important to know is because, once you think about it, each tactic is pathetic and, in no way, contributes to their chances of winning an argument.  Most tactics are a form of denial and the losing side refusing to accept the true claims of their opponent. Pay close attention because you've probably been in similar debating situations:

1. Changes the subject
     Hillary didn't want people to know about what was released so she kept trying to change the subject, typically to something she had recited prior to the debate so that she could sound more professional and to take your mind off of her losing points.  This is a cowardly act because it shows the debater is scared, or unable to protect themselves.

2. Brings up irrelevant information
      After Trump started talking about some of the crimes committed by her through the Clinton Foundation, she started bringing up the fact that Trump hasn't released his tax returns yet, and made a vague comparison to herself as though what Trump did was worse.  This is also another way of changing the subject but is, overall, another form of denial.

3. Refuses to accept claims of similarity
      If you are the opponent of someone in an argument, this is probably the most upsetting and perturbing thing to hear.  They will make a claim (let's assume a true claim) about you, yet they refuse to accept the fact that they are also guilty of the same claim.  Of course this is also known as hypocrisy, which, in some way, we are all guilty of, but there is no room for this in a debate of any kind.  The reason one does something like this so often in a debate is due to what I said earlier, being that they don't have sufficient data to win.  If they find anything to oppose you, they disregard themselves in any claim which ironically just makes them look like an even bigger fool.  Denial.

4. Plays the blame game
      "He did it!" "But she started it!"  A typical child's argument that is still common amongst debating individuals today.  No one wants to be the cause of something catastrophic, whether it be a physical event, or a topic of discussion.  The blame game is just another way of diverting attention away from one's imperfections and failures to try and make it look like, even if you are guilty of the claim, that you weren't the first to be guilty of it.  In the perspective of law, it doesn't matter who committed a crime first, if you're guilty, you're guilty.  Finding blame is a losing battle that just takes time, and because it is just another form of denial, it may never end.

5. Plays the victim card
      This one typically is a combination of the blame game, changing the subject, and bringing up irrelevant information.  The debater doesn't want to continue to try and fight a losing battle so they make accusations to look as though they are being treated unfairly.  This one is the most prevalent in society and is used to suppress someone's valid argument.  It becomes a battle to see who can take the most offense to non-offensive claims and statements and ultimately leaves the "victim" having unsettled and unkind feelings toward their opponent, even if the opponent did nothing at all.  Many false assumptions and implications are made by these card players, typically in the form of either taking a quote out of context, or rephrasing a quote with the inclusion of a non-existent implicit claim by their opponent.  This sadly works at suppressing people's public opinions, yet is detrimental to the person's ability and validity in terms of debatability and discussion.

   Think about these claims and make sure to avoid them in your own discussions.  If you're opponent is humble and honest enough, feel free to point it out to them if they are guilty of any of these claims so that you may continue to have a fair, honest, and contentionless discussion.  Don't be a hypocrite and don't be in denial, for your sake and the sake of those you speak with.

Why Ted Cruz is still making all the right moves

   If you haven't heard yet, Ted Cruz has been making calls for Donald Trump in Texas to "make sure Texas stays red."  Ever since Cruz announced this he has been getting all sorts of criticism about how he lost an even bigger battle than just the nomination, that he lost his dignity to Trump and is now his poor, embarrassed servant.  They use the poorly timed photo above as a sign he is "sad with his choice" and is regretting this decision.  The truth is that Cruz, at the beginning of the Republican primaries, pledged his support behind whomever would get the Republican nomination.  Trump harassed and insulted Cruz time and time again, including insults to his wife and father.  Just prior to the Presidential debate, Ted Cruz kept with his word and endorsed Donald Trump, but didn't leave it at that. He forgave Donald Trump, proving he can be the bigger man, and is even helping him win the election. In an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Cruz said:

I am happy to help. I have conveyed that to them. I will do whatever I can to defeat Hillary Clinton. My heavy focus this cycle, in addition to defeating Hillary, is on preserving a Republican majority in the Senate, and I am working hard to help my colleagues get reelected. I’m working hard to raise money for them, to help turn out conservatives in their state. And then I’m also working hard in the state of Texas to turn out conservatives, because if conservatives stay home this cycle, we could see really bad results on down ticket ballots, on judicial races, on state rep races. I don’t want to see that happen. So I’m going to do everything I can to urge conservatives to come out and vote, even if they may not be thrilled at the candidates on the ballot. I’m urging them to come out and vote anyway, because the consequences of staying home, I think, are really quite significant.

   Try to put yourself in his shoes. How easy do you think it is to forgive someone who publicly attacked your family, insulted you on national television, and accused your father of murder? Your reasons for holding a grudge are publicly documented, and thousands if not millions of people will side with you in your animosity.  Liberal society will mock you if you ditch your bitterness and will claim you are bowing down to the king's control.  Cruz looked past this, and decided to do what was right; what he and his father, and I, consider to be the Christlike thing to do.  As the son of a Christian preacher, and a devout Christian himself, he is proving to the American people that he is who he says he is, and he will always keep his word.  He is proving that he is willing to do the hard things in life if he knows it is something that must be done.

   Ted Cruz had every reason to endorse Evan McMullin, an independent candidate for president of the Mormon faith.  Cruz's arguably best friends, Glenn Beck and Mike Lee are both Mormons and he seems to get along well with those of that faith.  However, although McMullin is a conservative, his declared political party is independant, NOT Republican, which put Cruz in a difficult position.  Does he ditch his party and choose another conservative candidate that he probably is more similar to? Or does he keep his word and support the Republican party, the party he has been a part of his whole life?  I can't say I would have made the same decision as he did, he made the hard decision.  He got all the criticism he expected from the media but don't expect him to cave. He's a man of morals and a man of hard choices.  He is honest in everything he does and says which is more than we can say about the other main candidates. Ted Cruz is the man that we need as President of the United States of America which should give us all hope for 2020.  It can't come soon enough.

Why Google is so successful, and why you should love it

   The mobile world is so expansive and so competitive.  Cell phones compete against each other, Virtual Reality headsets, routers, mobile streaming and TV devices compete against each other in their own respective realms, and we see most companies sticking to their favorite realms, where they feel they will prosper most.  But Google is different; they don't want to just prosper within their already established realms, but they want to become professionals in every realm.  This is also good to drive competition within certain areas forcing better technology and better prices.  The first example that comes to mind is the Amazon Echo.  Amazon was the first to provide a product like this, and until today, they haven't had any competition, but Google intelligently jumped into the scene less than two years later to create a better assistant for a lower price.  This isn't only good for Google, but it will force Amazon to find ways to lower their cost to consumers, and to be more innovative which benefits consumers and Amazon.  Virtual Reality has been a big thing lately but really the only contenders are the HTC Vive and the Oculus Rift (and arguably the Samsung VR), but all of these options are $200 or more.  Google jumps in within a year to provide a cheaper alternative with comparable quality and range of games.  This, again, will force those in the forefront to lower their cost, provide more content, and a better experience to consumers.
   Apple, Roku, and Amazon Fire TV provided a cable set-top box like experience for mobile content and streaming through their various devices.  These were very simple and the capabilities limited.  Google shortly thereafter makes Android TV which had much more capabilities, integration with mobile devices, and for a lower cost.  Roku and Amazon Fire TV (not Apple) then decided to make comparable devices, and for a lower cost.

   The number of categories Google has dipped its toe into is too numerous for me to discuss here but be aware that it is well over 100.  As you can see Google is doing everything to have a part in every possible way it can, and because of its number of resources it has a shot in succeeding in almost everything it puts its effort into.  You care because you like having better products for a better price.  Whether you prefer Google products, HTC or Samsung products, Google is working on helping you save money and have better products.  When was the last time you saw Apple produce competition to a VR headset, Amazon Echo, Toyota, NASA, or anything that they haven't already been working on for 10 or more years?  Google isn't afraid to get its feet wet, and though not everything that has come from Google has been a marvelous success, the more they try, the more they succeed.  As a friend once told me, it's easier to make $1 million by finding a million ways to make $1 instead of 1 way to make $1 million.

Dear iPhone users, it's time to stop living in the past

   On September 7th, Apple announced the iPhone 7, probably one of the least anticipated iPhones to date.  iPhone users think that Apple has broken new ground and made amazing advancements.  I would have to agree... if it were 2012.  Prior to its release, iPhone 7 was already behind it's competition in every category.  Today (October 4) Google announced their own made phone called Google Pixel.  Less than a month later, Google makes it's first phone without the assistance of companies such as HTC, Huawei, LG, or other companies, and its specifications blow the iPhone out of the water, and for a fraction of the price.  They also know that Apple users are getting tired of the lack of advancements and have included an adapter in every box to help iPhone users switch to the Pixel seamlessly (pictured above.)

   But what about the dual lens camera??  Surely no one has ever done that before!  This is often how blind iPhone users are.  Dual lens cameras have been around for around a decade, but dual lens isn't a necessity for a good camera.  The Samsung S7 scored an 88 on DxOMark standards when the iPhone 7 has an 86, and the Samsung S7 only has one lens.  The newly announced Pixel phone received an 89 on the same DxOMark tests, the highest rating for any smartphone, a score higher than that of $6000 DSLR cameras!  Why can't Apple keep up?

   Devout iPhone users need to have a reality check.  Fact: 8 years ago, Apple was on the forefront of mobile technology and innovation, but that comes in large part due to the fact that they were the first players in the game.  IPhone users need to accept the fact that those who started leading the industry don't always end that way, as is the case with Apple.  For iPhone users who are looking for a still easy-to-use phone with powerful processing abilities, an amazing camera, with a much much better alternative to the sad excuse for an assistant that Apple calls Siri, AND for a fraction of the price, try the Google Pixel, or really ANY Android phone made within the last 3 years.  And don't worry, Google has a better alternative to your iMessages, Apple Music, iTunes, facetime, or anything else that Apple selfishly refuses to make available outside of iOS.  Just Google it.

Why LeBron's presidential endorsement does and doesn't matter

    Why are we seeing celebrities, sports stars, writers, directors, etc. endorse presidential candidates?  And why do we care?  Well I don't, and I'll tell you why.  The first reason should be obvious: they have no political credentials.  When someone like LeBron James, or the co-creator of South Park, Trey Parker, or Katy Perry endorse a candidate, they often do so for publicity, but it's also very much so out of ignorance.  They have no credibility and we should consider the reasons why they are endorsing their candidate of choice.  They don't know or understand the policies of the candidate very well, and they don't really think they will have an effect on them or their career.  We mock those who bandwagon to a certain team like the Cavs or the Warriors, but then they, the players themselves, bandwagon on political trains themselves.  We can assume the reason LeBron endorsed Hillary is because she supports Obama, who is black like LeBron, whom LeBron calls a good friend.  LeBron has also jumped aboard the race-baiting train and will do what he can to try and make a statement like Colin Kaepernick.
    Something else to consider is the money behind it all.  Dozens, if not hundreds of celebrities are paid by each candidate (typically the Democratic candidate) to endorse them.  Because money is very important to celebrities, and again, because they don't think any candidate can really hurt their career or income, they will take the highest bid.  If celebrities were actually educated or smart, they would know that the candidates CAN and DO affect their income and careers quite a bit.  According to Forbes, LeBron James' income for 2015 was $64.6 million which means he pays $25.6 in taxes at the very least.  If he were to choose a republican, such as Ben Carson who proposed a 10% flat tax on everyone, he'd be making $16.14 million more a year!  This is not something he, or really any other celebrity considers because, either way, they make a lot of money.
    But why does it matter who LeBron or other celebrities endorse?  Well particularly for places like Ohio, it is important.  People there almost worship LeBron James and even though he has no political merit, they'll listen to him. These type of endorsements, though credential-less, could actually swing the election to Hillary, or Trump, or Johnson, or whomever receives these endorsements.  We become so obsessed with celebrities that we idolize them and take anything they say or do as a legitimate option to be considered.  We, as voters, must find which sources, endorsers, and voices are reliable, as well as do research on the candidates' policies, history, and morals ourselves before we make our decision.  Remember, "by their fruits ye shall know them."

How the incompetent debate

Debates can be deceptive if you don't know the facts. Ever wondered why debates are so upsetting?  Who won?  And why?  We've all been in a debate and couldn't grasp our heads around the logic of those whom we debate.  I want to provide a guide to how people debate and why so that, not only can you do better in your own debates, but most importantly you can determine the rhetoric behind someone else's debating strategies.

First of all, the lack of sources is the first sign of someone with a weak argument.  Not always does this prove true but with the amount of information readily available in our world, it's easy to prove or disprove something.  To better understand the examples I will lay out, let's make debater number 1 be the successful debater, and we will call him Steve.  Debater number 2 will be the failing debater and we will call him Frank. S for success and Steve, F for failure and Frank.  Compare each to debaters you know of or put yourself in their shoes.  If Steve is using sources to prove his point, Frank will often do one thing: attack the source instead of the argument being made.  Now a source definitely needs to be reliable but Frank's defaming evidence typically consists of his own opinions of the source, or will be measured by unrelated measuring tools such as the number of views on the webpage article, the number of followers of the person being quoted, or the sources lack of eloquent writing abilities.  I was once in a debate about capitalism versus socialism on Facebook where I cited three sources as to why socialism doesn't work in practice.  Frank's response was something to the effect of "you're not even using peer-reviewed articles, I can't trust those."  Though that was a true statement, it held no relevance, and my source was sound and verifiable.  The reason why focusing too much on the validity of sources is detrimental to Frank is because the best way to debate is to support your claim, or defame your opponents, and this is neither.  Frank should rather come up with sources to oppose Steve's sources, or support his own stance instead, yet because he can't, he focuses on trivial matters.

Frank may also attack Steve for using sources, just based off of the fact he is using sources.  This may sound ridiculous but it happens.  The most recent time I have seen this was in a debate where Dinesh D'Souza was debating Cenk Uyger.  Cenk said that using statistics was a Republican's way of covering up the facts.  The reason why Cenk or Frank will make these claims isn't because they don't believe the statistics or the source, but because they don't have any sources themselves.  They feel like they brought a knife to a gun fight and that they want Steve to drop his gun to make it more fair, or to put them on level playing ground.  At least that's the claim, but really they don't own a gun.  Probably because they are a liberal.

Another thing Frank often will do is "laugh it off", or make a joke about Steve, or Steve's claim in order to show that he doesn't seemed bothered by the evidence against him or his argument.  While this isn't a good debating technique by any means, it seems to work.  Donald Trump did it in every Republican debate, and Hillary Clinton does it in her debates as well, but most recently in her debate against Trump she was found to laugh after almost every damning thing that Trump said.  Now Steve may laugh at what Frank says sometimes as well, but he will follow it up with evidence to disprove Frank's claim. To see how Donald Trump is a master of psychological tactics like this, check out a video by Charisma on Command here.

Next, they make sweeping generalizations.  It's based of the notion that if a small group is a certain way, the larger group must be as well. These are the times in which you must first ask yourself if you fit into that generalization, and second, fact check.  If you don't relate to the generalization made such as a statistic about "all females" when you are a male, look it up.  Generalizations I would dare say are more often true than they are not, but what Frank will do is make his "small group" as small as one or two people, and then throw the word "everybody" into his claim.  Frank has a friend who thinks that South Park is educational.  Frank then tells you that everyone, or at least most people find South Park to be educational.  Well I've never seen South Park so I don't fit in his generalization but I'm for sure going to fact check that!

Another tactic Frank might use is causality.  This is the claim that when there exists a correlation it must be causation. We learn in school that correlation is not causation, yet too often we see assumptions being made.  For example, it is a fact that over the years, America has gotten fatter.  The average body mass index of humans here has been increasing for years.  In the same time period, the number of satellites and radio/cell phone towers has also increased; therefore, satellites and radio towers cause obesity.  Now this example is a bit far-fetched but this is another case in which you must fact check what Frank says.  Just because two things happen simultaneously, or in similar situations does not mean they are related.  Frank often makes these claims due to the lack of resources.  Like my brother always says, 93% of statistics are made up.

My last point is really a continuation of the first point, which is, instead of discrediting the claim or the source, Frank will attack Steve.  He will result to name calling, previous stances on previous debate topics, and attacks on Steve's validity as a human, again being measured by uncredible tools.  "Steve, I have 4 times as many followers on Twitter as you." "Steve, last topic you supported Blackberry phones, and we know how that went. This debate is going the same way." Is it though?  Now a lot of you will point the finger at Donald Trump, which is definitely a tactic he resorts to, but in a heated debate, almost everyone succumbs.  Hillary Clinton in her most recent debate against Trump called him crazy, a racist, a sexist, a birther, etc.  This is not typically as a hateful act but rather a last ditch attempt to make you think less of their opponent as a person, and as a reliable source themselves so that you won't value or hear their opinion.

Now I am by no means the perfect example of avoiding these things but I do my best to make sure what I say is reliable, verifiable, accurate, and not misleading.  The important thing about debating is to not be so focused on "winning" but rather on accurately portraying your opinions, making your claims, or supporting your argument to the best of your ability.
Don't let Frank trick you.