Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
 |
| 03/06/2016 07:20 PM |
|
Wow...full ride. Very impressive. We got a decent chunk of change from IU (and Mizzou). Was looking like Mizzou, but then IU came up with an extra $5K / year and sealed it.
IU was her first choice, so that worked out great! |
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
ChinookPass
Posts:809
|
| 03/07/2016 12:46 PM |
|
| Congrats and it is huge that your daughter has picked a direction and is charging forward. |
|
|
|
|
Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
|
| 03/07/2016 02:03 PM |
|
Thanks, CP....I just wish it was in a field that wasn't....you know...dying!
She is full-fledged, old school...wants to do print journalism. Has zero interest in broadcst, etc. We watched Spotlight this weekend and she absolutely LOVED it.
(and if you haven't sen it, you should check it out...highly recommended!) |
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
ChinookPass
Posts:809
|
| 03/07/2016 03:15 PM |
|
| Yeah, I started out in college wanting to be a journalist. About halfway through the first semester, I saw where that was going and switched majors. Still, I think if you are passionate, you can find a way to make just about anything work. I figured out right away, that I wasn't passionate. Our son is hedging on his major right now, arguing that he should go one way with more job prospects and more defined career, when we can tell that is heart is in an entirely different place. He's probably not going to get rich, but he'll be a lot happier if he sticks with what he loves. |
|
|
|
|
Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
|
| 03/07/2016 03:53 PM |
|
Oh yeah...I definitely agree. I have 3 liberal arts majors, all of which qualified me to work retail for the rest of my life. But I have managed to do OK for a career.
And passionate she is....she LOVES journalism. And she is really driven, so I really have zero concerns for her. She is gonna be successful no matter what she decides to do in life.
|
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
Dale
Posts:1767
|
| 03/07/2016 08:59 PM |
|
Yup, my daughter loves print as well and not at all interested in doing radio or TV. She likes the way a story can develop in print. Loved Spotlight, as did I.
The only down side to that is my fear of being severely judged when I send a text or email knowing my grammar and punctuation is marginal at best. The plus side of the ledger is I get a proof reader when I submit formal proposals and such. |
|
|
|
|
smokey52
Posts:493
|
| 03/08/2016 06:22 AM |
|
Kids these days. Don't they want to get rich and take care of their parents in their old age?
The daughter is an editor with MLA (the people who write the style rules of writing, among other things).
The son is a public defender in an upstate NY county.
I guess we count riches in a way besides money. |
|
|
|
|
Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
|
| 03/08/2016 09:59 AM |
|
Help make Canada safe.
http://www.brickingitforcanada.com/ |
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
smokey52
Posts:493
|
| 03/09/2016 04:22 PM |
|
| I don't understand the concept of an open primary. If you are not a member of a political party, why should you have any say in its candidates? Bernie took Michigan with the support of non-Democrats. |
|
|
|
|
Orange Crush
Posts:4499
|
| 03/09/2016 04:51 PM |
|
I don't understand the concept of voters having to be registered with parties; its pretty much unheard of in rest of world. In Canada I just vote. Simple.
Sanders is on track to finish within 5 percentage points of Clinton by the time primaries are over. If he can build further momentum he could still take this. It shows the appeal of his message (he'd be a shoe in anywhere else in world) and the limited appeal of the Clinton machine.
Funny CK. |
|
|
|
|
longslowdistance
Posts:2881
|
| 03/09/2016 06:29 PM |
|
US presidential primaries are a 20th century invention. Before that, parties' candidates were picked by party bosses in smoke filled rooms. Primaries were created for many reasons, including to be more democratic.
How much choice do Canadians have about who the PM candidates are? They are picked by their own parties from among the legislature, no? Or is that just the UK? |
|
|
|
|
Orange Crush
Posts:4499
|
| 03/09/2016 06:57 PM |
|
Party leaders get picked by party. Voter input is at the general election ballot box, if the party mucked up picking their leader they do poorly in election (see Liberals for about a decade). Enter Trudeau who is dining w Obama tonight and they win by a landslide. So the party is served by having a good sense of what voters want.
This is pretty much how its done everywhere. In theory the US system is more democratic, in practice not so much. Both Repub and Democratic brass is very busy making sure their candidates win (the Repubs had a secret meeting yesterday w Carl Rove) so suddenly the voters feel disenfranchised. If party brass simply picks the leader then at least there's no illusion of democracy. |
|
|
|
|
longslowdistance
Posts:2881
|
| 03/09/2016 07:38 PM |
|
Disenfranchisement is the go-to explanation for the (embarrassing) Trump phenomenon. Screwed by the Wall Street 0.01 percenters (the Obama administration Justice Dept. indicted no one, nada, zero, zilch for the financial melt down WTF he was bought off), blue collar manufacturing jobs gone and never coming back in the name of more cheap crap at Walmart, and social status of working blue collar middle class gone. I get their anger. It began with Reagan, amplified 10 fold by Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" (= What's good for my Wall Street Friends is good for me), and cast in stone by Reagan and W's Supremes (Corporations are people with all the associated rights; money = free speech and can and by golly should flow enencombered into the political process). This will be corrected eventually, but it will take at least a generation.
Our idiot 7th Pres. Andrew Jackson, the first populist Pres, installed racist mf Taney as Chief Justice of the Supremes. Taney's crowning achievement was the Dred Scott decision. We fix things eventually but not always in a timely manner and not always the easy way.
This sort of disaffection has been proposed for Bernie's success, too, but I see his Vision as positive rather than reactive and hateful, and Hillary's substantial negatives boost his candidacy, so the analogy breaks down. |
|
|
|
|
Orange Crush
Posts:4499
|
| 03/09/2016 08:07 PM |
|
I agree that Bernie has a solid message and vision and this is why people vote for him. But those voters feel to some degree disenfranchised by their party who has been making life hard on Sanders.
Hillary doesn't have a message other than its my turn and that's her problem.
For all his faults, Trump has very efficiently exposed the Repub party for what it is and poked the balloon. He's running a smarter strategy than you'd think. The only one that scares me more than him is Cruz. He's a nut, period.
And it didn't start with Reagan, in actuality the first swing to right was under Carter (that surprised me too). There was an ABC, anyone but Carter movement because the Democrats at the time were scared of the swing to right the party would see under him and whether that would be electable after many decades of progressive policies. That swing to right endures unless Sanders can break it. |
|
|
|
|
longslowdistance
Posts:2881
|
| 03/09/2016 08:10 PM |
|
Good post.
Especially regarding Cruz. He's super smart, but also a scary nut job. Similar to the jihadists: tear it down in order to build a better shining future to prepare for the second coming.
Sanders vs. Cruz would be a wild choice of opposites.
Of course with the current Congress Bernie would be shut down like Obama.
The next census in 2020 will shake up Congress a lot. But until then, and how many reactionaries they can pack onto the Supreme Court . . .
|
|
|
|
|