Also, college is way more fun than trades, and you'll have the opportunity to make a ton of friends and form your own connections with people.
Unless you can do it without debt, college is a terrible idea. Easily as bad an idea as exists. The traditional idea of what college is has been dead for decades. It's now intellectually stifling, socially stifling, and just a bore if you have any opinions in conflict with the "student body" as a whole. There is no benefit to it any longer and the bubble will eventually burst.
I have a passion for sports, I want to be a play by play announcer or analyst.
Odds of success in that field are virtually nil. If you have no pro or college sports playing experience on a high level, it is basically not going to happen. Chasing a dream makes sense only if you can support yourself.
Pursue a degree in a specific field like computer science or engineering (get a BS degree, not a BA). There will always be jobs in fields like those. Poly-Sci and other BA degrees are good, but employers don't seem to specifically target degrees such as those; they are just very general degrees (which could be a good thing since you aren't tied to one field). Even is you don't pursue a BS, taking some math/statistics classes could give you an edge in sports analysis
Computer Science jobs are outsourced all of the time. That is hardly a good idea at this point. And humanities/liberal arts degrees are utterly useless and have been for years. If a college tells you otherwise, they are lying to you. Employers aren't going to spend a ton of time or money in training, so those degrees are albatrosses.
You have a shot at $20/hr right now? College isn't going to give you that anytime in the foreseeable future.
The belief, starting in the 1970's, that college is required to have a good job is a crime committed against the young. A BA in any field is, literally, a dime a dozen. Bachelor degrees are meaningless. A trade gets you a job immediately. Unless you wish to pursue post-grad work and have great connections, then save your money and visit bars after your workday is over. You'll get the social experience at far less a cost.
Ferguson is markedly more entertaining and his show has been the best late night show on for a while. Colbert has been a one-note "joke" for years now. Maybe he has depth he's never showed before, but it seems unlikely.
@crembaw: Might want to read up on the CPUSA, which was a puppet of Moscow. Venona demonstrated that as did the brief opening of the Soviet archives under Yeltsin.
You are confusing opposing gay marriage with hating gay people. I suppose it makes an argument that this man deserves to lose a job in spite of doing nothing to warrant it more palatable, but it makes any attempt to condemn the blacklist laughable.
@teaoverlord: Its the exact same thing, except it kept people supportive of a murderous regime away from movies and television instead of gays from getting married. Both are social pressure and nothing more...except that there were Communists in Hollywood.
@pyromagnestir: Again, nobody is saying the employee cannot use BC. They have zero right to expect SOMEBODY ELSE to pay for it. That's the entire issue and is likely to end up going against the government in the Hobby Lobby case.
If you really can't see the difference between one person making a joke in order to point out something insensitive taking place and another person giving their money to support an anti-civil rights movement then really there's no point discussing anything further.
If you can't see somebody PERSONALLY opposing something but PROFESSIONALLY treating everybody equally, then there is absolutely no point in discussing this further, you're correct. Apparently, things done off the job SHOULD get people fired...in some things the mob opposes.
If what's his face wants to come out and say he donated ironically and it was all a big gag or something, then hey! Whatever!
What business is it of YOURS, anyways?
Did he oppress gays on the job? Treat them poorly at all? No, he didn't by universal acclaim. This was a mob action, which is lovely and all --- just don't be stunned when the mob turns on you. It tends to do that.
You see, there's a slight difference between restaurateurs and legally licensed medical doctors.
No, there isn't. Both are places of business. If CVS/Walgreens wants to carry a drug a pharmacist opposes and he/she refuses to hand out the meds, then the employer has a right to fire them for going against the company's desires. If they're independent, then no, they don't have to do a thing they don't wish to. If it's an independent pharmacist and they say they don't want to carry BC, then sorry, your girlfriend/wife/sister/whatever isn't going to be able to FORCE them to do so.
So, you're on record supporting businesses imposing their ethics on people. Nice consistency.
It supposes that in order for anyone to argue anything, they are required to argue everything.
If you're going to attention whore for a specific thing, then yes, you're obligated to do the same for other things. Since they demonstrated that they will speak out against things they oppose, it follows logically that anything they don't speak out against, they support.
its shocking how many people would be fine with a business not allowing black people.
Given that the market would shut them down, no, I see no reason for the government to get involved. Losing oodles of business over the policy would handle it better than anything else. The government is embarrassingly bad (and easily bought) at handling anything. They'd take years and get plenty of contributions to do nothing. Meanwhile, when the market notices the problem, they act quickly.
It took the market less than 2 months to bankrupt Enron when their problems became known. The government would've taken many years to do the same.
Let's face a simple reality: Gay people are about 2.5% of the population. Attempting to oppress a significantly larger majority isn't going to end well. Just as feminism is effectively a dead thing thanks to Feminists, gay rights support is going to crater because of the behavior of their advocates.