Should Governmental Entities & Universities Compete for Attractive /Qualified Applicants to Become a Part of Their Businesses?

It is this writer's belief that our society or more frankly, "our world" is in a detrimentally state of communicative decay. As such, we should not find the continuing deplorable manner of our matriculating institutions appalling without competitiveness. Governmental entities and universities should compete for the most attractive and qualified students irrespective of background to improve conditions of their individual businesses. Even though it might be hard to admit that we have been living in a world that strives off capitalism and global interdependence, which essentially adds up to a world that is dependent on competition—we need to remember that competition is based on a Darwinism concept is a desirable concept for challenges and survival. Now, as attractive as this prospect might sound I am still inclined to believe that irrespective of what happens, or who the competitive edge goes to in our sordid and manically depressive world, there will always be a struggle where minority candidates are considered because of bigotry and quotas. Competing for attractive / qualified candidates do not equate in a just manner to minorities when you have subjectivity / subjective humans overseeing the entirety of any issue. “Qualified” and “Competitiveness” will always be subjectively instead of objectively decided. For example, the Ivy League universities within the United States—at least some of them have decided to reduce the fiduciary burdens of educational attainment on individuals/students who are from lower income backgrounds. Even though this is a great stride though well overdue, it is imperative to note that there are still some of us who have attained graduate degrees without much occupational progress and still struggle exponentially because of inabilities to repay loans in a job market that excludes us for many diverse factors. Hopefully, reducing financial liabilities for destitute individuals will permit these universities to recruit students solely on qualifications and not legacy or financial status—thus giving poorer students a fighting chance to reach their aspirations. Though, the government is not essentially providing any necessary competitive edge for students who are more than qualify to assume certain competitive roles to change the current disdain we continue to experience. Let us keep in mind that competitiveness does reduce the reliance on financial status being priority in recruiting qualified individuals to fill a position. So, realistically speaking, it is difficult to state or presume the effects of such proposition without further commitment to retaining the services of such qualified applicants upon the completion of their educational matriculation. As with all things, there are usually three ideas or postures put forward to discuss the implications of any controversial propositions (pros, moderate, cons / perspective 1, fact, perspective 2). Our world has become such a mutually exclusive decision point on issues of importance that we now rely on a "Simon Cowell" type American Idol fallacy to determine decision making finality based on votes and not necessarily intellect. This being the case, there are currently no guarantees that any propositions or lack thereof, irrespective of what the topic might be and who the propositions are supposed to benefit, will actually last without one contention or another discussing the prejudicial or discriminatory effect on one party or another. To that end, we need to commence the acceptance of the reasonable perspective that “those who are able to make changes are usually excluded from influencing propositions of which we now speak”.

Better One Good Parent, Than Two Bad Ones

Now, I am absolutely certain that many of us are fascinated by stupidity. This is especially true when some people attempt to demean others by pretending to have all the answers. The Topic: Single Moms & Electing To Have Children
I was watching a morning show where a man appeared on the show complaining of the selfishness of single females who chose to bear children without fathers to assist with the responsibilities. I am married and without children, I would not let my being single stop me from conceiving if I wanted to have a child. One cannot condemn someone for having children once the act is based on the right reasons at the time the decision was made. First, there are so many single women who took chances with men that they thought would be available to assists, as fathers instead of sperm donors. However, on a realistic note, this only happens for some women whether they are married or single. Whatever the cases are for men disappearing at the news of conception, during conception, or after conception, there remains the same dilemma--a woman who is single and is raising a child or children by herself.
Therefore, I pose these questions:
What are the differences between:
1. A man who is there since the conception of the child,
2. A man who remained for a brief period after the birth of the child and disappeared thereafter for any number of reasons,
3. A man who was there for the child since birth to infancy, adolescence, or early adulthood, but is now dead, involved in the criminal justice system being processed for various crimes, robbing and killing, abusing his significant other, or physically, sexually, and or verbally abusing the child/children
4. Men who remain for the life of the child (extremely minimal amount in numbers): "kudos for taking accountability for your part of the 46 chromosomes!,
5. Women who come to the rescue of the children of others either through adoption and, or as foster parents because the biological mothers were either too young, too destitute, ill or other, (keep in mind that the men are still missing for one reason or the other),
6. The women who were raped and chose to keep the child or abort it for evident reasons, or decide to give it up for adoption after birth due to the trauma of the assault, if abortion was not an option,
7. The men who grew resentful of their relationships because they felt indebted to the entirety of the current girlfriend, wife, and child situation, (especially with a child or children involved) and they commence cheating because they are unhappily remaining for the sake of the child,
8. The lesbian couple who chooses to have a child with her partner because their sexual orientation (both being female) does not support both sides of, or meet the criteria of the gene pool (23X & 23Y chromosomes) that is required to birth children except through artificial insemination,
9. The homosexual couples who choose to have a child with his partner because their sexual orientation (both being male) does not support both sides of, or meet the criteria of the gene pool (23X & 23Y Chromosomes) that is required to birth children except through artificial insemination of a woman or adoption,
10. The couples (males and females, military and civilian alike) who decide to place their eggs and sperm in storage for those "just in case situations" (likelihood of death, or other dilemmas),
11. Parents who remained committed even though they fight continuously before the child/children without realizing the damages being caused,
12. And, "YES", the single women who chose to have a child independently of a man? How could we forget those "single women”, who according to many, “made poor choices in refusing to wait until they are 120 years, or until they transform into dinosaurs before finding "Mr. Right". In any debate relating the questionable inferences concerning single motherhood, let us not forget the donors who sell their sperm and eggs to assist otherwise childless couples in conceiving. I am blessed and happy to have a single mother, and know that her decision to conceive resulted in the same situation many women with children typically do. The result is still single parenthood no matter how much one planned for a pregnancy if the partner decides to leave during or after conception of the child. Basically, before we start bashing every single parent and their supposedly selfish decisions to bear children with the “perfect” partner, please consider all the factors that can influence and modify an individual’s plan for a family.

So far, yet so far behind the times

It is quite remarkable that human beings have not yet destroyed themselves and the world as well. Unfortunately for many people, they are not ready for the impending destruction that will result due to human violence and inflated egos. Fortunately for me, I never placed much hope in the human race. We have learned so little about life, love, trust, equity, similarities, uniqueness, and our dependence on each other for the survival of all. The historical and continued references and reminders of classism, racism, sexism, violence, and other “isms”, have become so mundane in our world, that individuals will only take notice when extreme violence is the preceding factor to any issue. We currently live in a society that has developed into nothing more than a concrete jungle with reverberating issues due to social injustices, political stupidity, and lack of respect for human dignity. We discourage violence among the youth population but have given up on the adult population; thereby, encouraging its continued representation in the media. Have we forgotten how impressionable the youth population is? My current and most troubling fear is that we have ill-equipped our children for a society of dilemmas that we have created with no intentions of correcting before we expire. First, it is crucial to understand that evolution goes two ways and we are going the wrong way. If our leaders cannot even resolve issues without the use of physical violence, why do we continue to criminalize the violent acts of the "supposedly" less educated? Ignorance breeds ignorance. In my opinion, most of our leaders including those worldwide are ignorant any. How can leaders speak publicly about condemning violence, yet the house floor has becoming a boxing ring on which to resolve personal vendettas and ego issues.