The Cost of a College Education

Who benefits most from people having a college education?  Certainly the person who gets the degree benefits.  But don't the corporations that hire these graduates benefit more than the graduates themselves?  Yes, I know that corporations contribute to the universities in the towns within which they do business, but perhaps we could consider a "reverse-dowery" approach to funding the cost of education.  Corporations would pay a fee, dependent on the "reputation" of the university that a candidate attended.  The fee would go toward payment of the tuition of the applicant.

This would have a couple obvious advantages.  Universities that produced graduates that excelled in their field would fetch higher "fees".  In other words, the MARKET would determine the best universities.  Also, the cost of education would be driven by the market that the education supports.  If corporations aren't willing to spend what a university education costs, then either universities have to figure out how to reduce their cost or corporations have to figure out how to get along without degrees as currently defined.  Eventually equilibrium will be established and the unreasonable cost of higher education will be abated.

$2.50/gal Gasoline

Republican candidates would say that if we fully exploit our own energy resources a driller delivers a barrel of oil to the refinery and gets $50 so we can have $2.50 gas.  But, he can sell that oil on the world market for $100/barrel.  Why do you think he is going to sell it for $50?  Is the government going to make him do it?  What do you say Newt? Ron?  Mitt?  Rick?  Share with us how this works.

Contraception Deception

It seems to me that our President is trying to get out of hot water with a little sleight of hand on the contraception issue.  The original rule said religiously affiliated employers must provide full contraception coverage.  Obviously this didn't sit well with Catholic leadership (though the average woman in the pew could care less since most of them used some form of contraception regardless of what the church said).

The new rule says that insurers (not the employer) must offer free coverage to women working at religiously affiliated institutions.  Just where, exactly, are the insurance companies going to get the money to provide this "free" coverage?  Might they raise the cost of insurance (in which case, isn't the employer still paying for it)?  Might the government pay them, in which case the money comes from the taxpayers, which for the most part are the employees, so it's not really "free".

I don't get it.  The original rule said the employer had to provide the coverage, it didn't say that women had to take advantage of it!  Apparently, the bishops don't trust their female parishioners to follow their made-up rules without financial consequences. 

Bradying

Well.... I did do a post about "Tebowing" (Dec 18, 2011).... it's only fair that we give equal time to "Bradying". A picture is worth more than I could ever write though.

Bill Maher: ‘Atheism is a Religion Like Abstinence is a Sex Position’

This is just too good to not share:

Superbowl 2012

So, for another year it's all over. I must admit that I watched the game and I enjoyed it. But it was the game that I enjoyed, not so much the spectacle and extravagance. Somehow I feel taken-advantage-of, knowing that advertisers are paying $3.5M for 30 seconds of my eyeballs and all I get for it is a) the opportunity to watch a football game and b) higher cable, Coke, Doritos, Chevy and Chrysler prices. Can it really be true that someone who wasn't already going to buy a Chevy truck is going to buy one because only a Chevy truck and Twinkies will survive Armageddon?

Anyhow, I wonder how many "occupiers" watched the game with a Bud in one hand and a hand full of Doritos in the other, contributing to the pockets of the one-percenters they were watching.

Perhaps next year the "Boycott Superbowl" movement will get more traction. The sports madness has got to stop somehow.