Target Goes for "Tarjae" Status ON Thanksgiving

Is Target looking for a "Tarjae" amount of money to bring them into ‘the black’ this holiday season...before the infamous "Black Friday" even starts? Either they got really confused with Daylight Savings Time this year and set their clocks 3 hours ahead or they deliberately chose to get a head start on the money making by opening their stores on Thanksgiving evening at 9 PM. Years ago many retailers moved their opening time to midnight...technically Friday, but this most recent change has resulted in over 200,000 names on a petition. The petition was written by a young employee who wrote to the corporate office asking this, “Target: Take the high road and save Thanksgiving."

Check out the full story here:

http://www.chron.com/life/article/Target-employee-starts-online-petition-to-keep-4033317.php

In all fairness, Target is not the only retailer that decided to use this technique this year. Other holiday-snatching companies include Wal-Mart and Sears who are opting for an even earlier open, 8 PM. Now, similar petitions for the other stores are also going viral. This story reminds the public of an interesting way to engage in discourse; petitions are an often useful method to show disapproval of an action. In this case, Target responded to their employee by informing her that she will not be punished for her action (i.e. creating the petition) and offered her the evening off on Thanksgiving. She respectfully declined with the reason that it would not be fair to her fellow team members. The petition was enough to catch the attention of the corporate office, but not enough to change the time of opening on Thanksgiving.

Will this story affect how you use your Red Card? 

"Don't you dare say the "D" word or the "F" word!"

If you work in Higher Education...your vocabulary has got to change. And no...we are not referring to curse words.

The "D" Word: As a college student, I commonly referred to where I lived as my "D-O-R-M" and now I have learned to erase that word from my vocabulary. The word that has taken its place is the much more proper, "Residence Hall". While I understand the reasoning behind the switch, I cannot help but wonder if this really has any effect on the students.

Check out this explanation from Vladosta State University http://services.valdosta.edu/housing/Dormvs.ResidenceHall.aspx

While I understand the explanation -- I question the research, or lack thereof...

The "F" Word: When I first started college, I was a "F-R-E-S-H-M-A-N" and now that word too has been eliminated from my vocabulary and replaced with "First-Year". Again, I understand the reasoning, but I question the true effect that this has on students. All our previous presidents were referred to as "freshman" and this did not lead to negative self-fulfilling prophecies.

I wonder if we get too caught up in the "political correctness" of words and lose sight of the bigger picture -- does this really affect our students... because that is what we are here for...right?

"Granito"...Why the Filmmakers want it Bootlegged?

"We sold the movie to the biggest bootlegger there is in Guatemala...because we WANT people to see it"
--Pamela Yates

When the filmmakers are encouraging their own documentary to be bootlegged -- you know they are not in it for the money, but they are in it for the spreading of a message. "Granito: How to Nail a Dictator" is a documentary that was almost accidental. The first film that Pamela Yates made on Guatemala was called, When the Mountains Tremble. Essentially this documentary provided the outtakes that would eventually become the necessary "grain of sand" to "tip the scales of justice" for indicting a human rights villain. The villain, Dictator Efraín Rios Montt, knowingly ordered genocide on the indigenous people of Guatemala despite his adamant denial.

After watching the documentary, I could not help but be stunned at the courage of the filmmakers, particularly Pamela Yates. She put her life on the line for years in hopes of exposing an injustice and working towards change. Without the bravery of leaders like her, our world would be a very stagnant place. Progress is simple not automatic or instantaneous. We all have someone to thank for the freedoms that we enjoy today and for this we have to do our part for those who still lack the basic human rights. Films like this opens our eyes to a world that is not filled with free education, homes, and SUVs -- in fact, if you have any of the above you are more fortunate than the majority of the world. Injustice exists and we need to look it straight in the eye…just as these filmmakers concentrated on the head of the “nail” that eventually led to decades of overdue justice for a dictator.

Planning the Perfect Election Watch Party

Appetizers...check
Beverages...check
Clean house...check
TV ready...check
Guests invited...um...WHO?

For someone who has never hosted nor attended an Election Watch Party, I cannot help but wonder all the goes into the process. While I understand the proper hosting etiquette...the only BIG question I have for this type of party is...WHO DO YOU INVITE?

For instance, say you identify as a Moderate...do you invite your extreme liberal and conservative friends to the same party? Say you are very conservative; do you only invite only your friends and colleagues that will reinforce your values? Or, do you invite your liberal friends in hopes that you can put a "W" in their face?

Maybe it is like having a Bears vs. Packers party...except just a whole lot more personal. This party may have two different "teams" you’re rooting for, but you’re not just voting for the team that you grew up watching...you are rooting for the candidate that shares your ideologies.

So, if I had to choose my guest list now, I would say I would choose a variety of perspectives and then I would get my largest knife sharpened...just in case I would have to cut the tension in the room.

Until Tuesday...Happy Election Party Planning!

The Danger of Protecting the "Endangered Species"

"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places."  -- Warren Buffet

Just as the mega-rich enjoy having political friends (i.e. the decreasing tax rates) -- I think the more advantageous friendship is the reversal. Some may say the relationship is symbiotic, but it my opinion -- there is an aspect of commensalism. For instance, it seems as though the politicians benefit more so from "having friends in high places", whereas the rich are not deeply affected by the relationship. While some politicians were essentially born wealthy...others depend on the wealthy to support their campaigns, projects, and ideologies. While the extremely wealthy make up only about 1% of the population (hence Occupy’s slogan -- 'We are the 99%'), they seemingly control the opposite. When a small group of individuals control such a large portion of our world's wealth-- they, in turn, control a similar amount in terms of power. In reality, the whole relationship is unhealthy and dangerous. It reinforces the ideal that money can be used to buy power. As politicians treat the mega-rich as "endangered species" -- they are doing so to protect their motives from going extinct. Let's put an end to the protection of the "endangered species" not to cause harm to the rich, but to challenge our politicians in a way where they are forced to make decisions based upon morality and values and not on 'saving face'.

Higher Education...Where is the debate?

In effortless terms, the current debate argues this....

Public Primary Education = Much Worse
Private Primary Education = Much Better

Public Secondary Education =Much Worse
Private Secondary Education = Much Better

Public Higher Education =?
Private Higher Education =?
For-profit Higher Education = Basically EVIL

So, while this trivial outline looks at this debate in the most simple of terms -- does it hold any truth? Are the messages that we are receiving leading to simplified labeling -- are these labels generally true or does it depend on location and tax bracket? The vast majority of time spent debating public vs. private is found in the primary and secondary levels, but what do people say about the institutions of higher education? Do they say "it depends on the school". Is the fact that students feel like they have more control over choosing their institution take the heated discussion off such institutions. But wait...what about those For Profit institutions of Higher Ed, oh -- that's right, they’re basically evil -- so we hear.

Are these for-profit schools taking all the heat away from the private vs. public discussion? Such institutions are accused of taking advantage of specific audiences; veterans will GI bills, single parents, and those coming from low income homes. Why do such businesses seek out these audiences -- because they assume that they are "easy targets". There are different types of accreditation, regional and national. While being "nationally-accredited" may sound more prestigious, it is quite the opposite. Schools that have regional accreditation also go by the names of Duke, Yale, and Harvard. While the accreditation debate is one that is on the forefront -- can this be something that is applied to primary and secondary schools. Accreditation is a process that evaluates all aspects of an institution -- in lieu of test scores. Are higher education institutions on to something, or will it just reinforce competition with winners and losers among primary and secondary education schools? Or, will accreditation continue to emphasize third-parties in the marketplace, such as those that grant national accreditation. The real concern in my opinion is viewing education as a business, for now, that is probably where the debate will stay.

One Puzzle Piece doesn't FIT for ALL

Bad schools. Bad teachers. Bad students. Really, the finger-pointing could go on forever -- but is this getting us anywhere? As mentioned in CJ's blog, http://cjhmls590.blogspot.com/2012/10/is-education-really-priority-response.html, the two presidential canidates have spent an unbelievable amount on finger-pointing in this presidential race and what has this accomplished. As Guggenheim honestly reflects in "The Making of Waiting for "Superman","You've found a great school for your kids--but is that enough? You've pulled your kids from the system and turned your back on the problem. Your kids will be okay, but what about other people's children?" In my opinion, this final question should be ringing in everyone's ears, especially those in a position to make policy changes. But, to take this idea further -- I don't think this question of other people's children should only be limited to education...

All across the country and around the world, the basic needs of children are not being met. If we use Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, we realize EVERY CHILD WILL BE LEFT BEHIND if they do not have their basic needs fufilled. They cannot advance to the highest stage of self-actualization without proper nutrition, sleep, and feeling safe. In my opinion, maybe the question of the "Great Divergence" is really the area for concern.

Sure, a Benet Academy for all sounds ideal, but this is a suburban perspective. Would this sort of school work in the inner cities or in the rural areas...only people that live in those areas would know.  Just like standardized tests are criticized for being written by wealthy whites for wealthy whites; wouldn't putting a "Benet Academy" in place of every public school also be reinforcing the "white man's ideal". Before we go about assuming that we know what is best for everyone; let's first get a diverse group of people together to find out what the children's real needs are and not what we assume them to be. Only then, can we work towards a solution that is not a “ONE PUZZLE PIECE FOR ALL” -- our needs are much more diverse than that.