KWVeteran - firstly, than you for your service to our country.
I don't really disagree with you, but do remember the context of the article. This was a compilation of ideas / suggestions that UTC marketing students had for generating potential revenue for the airport. I am glad that the students and their professors were out examining real world scenarios to generate realistic possibilities in their constantly-evolving field, versus simply making thier way through a textbook. I probably disagree with more of their suggestions than I agree with (I don't like the over-commercialization we already experience), but I applaud their efforts and am encouraged by their creativity, even if I disagree with their implementation.
Generally a good article...thanks for bringing light to what is often an underexposed part of the conversation - it does cost money to have good arts opportunities! This is obviously a surprise to Steve Barrett and his pathetic CTFP commentary on 4/12/09. My main concern is that with so many talented, credible, and credentialed artists already in the area (music, dance, studio arts, etc.) - more per capita than many other places for certain - why aren't we doing more to promote the existing incredible arts oportunities that are already here, instead of committing so many resources to having more artsits move here? If the existing dollars went more towards building up and encouraging people to participate in the existing opportunities, this community would be inherently more arts-oriented, participatory, and - wait for it, Mr Barrett - better.
What a great honor for a charter member of such a wonderful organization. I'm sure there are many more deserving alumni who will be considered in future years. The Chattanooga Boys Choir is one of the real gems of our community of which we should all be very proud.
Don't forget that John Payne's poem (the "Home, Sweet Home" song you quote) continues:
"An exile from home, splendor dazzles in vain;
O, give me my lowly thatched cottage again!"
The moral is this - too many people were buying castles when they should have been moving into thatched cottages. Blame the foolish home buyers, blame the unscrupulous mortgage companies, blame the unprincipled banks - any way you look at it, this was a problem of our own doing. I just hate that when it comes time to pay the piper, it's my dollars in taxes that are being used to help out those who should have just plain known better and those companies who were irresponsible enough to give them those loans. Selfishness, greed, and poor planning (or a complete lack thereof) caused this. You can blame Carter and Clinton, but at some point, the home buyers still had the opportunity to say "no" and find something more within their budget.
When I bought my first house, the realtor and mortgage brokers all said that we were approved to buy much more house than we did. After running the numbers, my wife and I knew what we were comfortable in paying (much less than what the banks and realtors tried to entice us to pay), and bought our home accordingly. It is well within our NEEDS, and more importantly, well within our means. I fear too many people heeded the advice of their mortgage lenders and realtors than their own 9th grade economics course.
There are undoubtedly many people who are in danger of foreclosure from circumstances other than those I described above. However, the housing epidemic on a national basis was the most preventable piece of the very difficult puzzle our country now finds itself in. Worse yet, it's a large part of the vicious circle that has caused other portions of our economy to spiral. The fact that my tax dollars are going towards keeping someone in a house he couldn't afford in the first place instead of educating my child, fixing our infrastructure, securing our streets, or advancing our community makes me very upset.
This tack simply has no place in a society that prides itself in capitalism. When the venture of private ownership is compromised, the flawed system must be viewed with skepticism, as the suspicion of government mechanisms (read: “taxpayer help”) will always loom, not allowing true capitalism to flourish.
This article goes to show just how out of touch some of those in higher education leadership are from the actual educational process as experienced by students. Mr. Stanberry's quote is downright embarassing to our state university system. As students and others in the article made very clear, this money is the amount in scholarships that were not used on tuition and fees ONLY. The actual costs of attending college necessarily include rent, technology, food, books, and a host of other expenses that are, as exhibited in the article, paid for by the erroneously titled 'refund.'
I think the sentence "UT officials say the large number of refunds...shows few students are struggling to find money to pay for college and could afford a tuition increase" is horribly misleading. The struggle to find and earn scholarships and the necessary work to maintain eligibility for them are incredible accomplishments and represent significant effort and time spent as good students and campus citizens. The students who receive the scholarships, in turn, are thus rewarded for their hard work and initiative. It is insulting to imply that these students who earn these rewards do not struggle.
No. 2 Baylor tops No. 3
"He had a concussion last year too"??? What are we demanding from these high school kids? For your own health, PLEASE hang up the cleats!
Lovell Field naming rights could boost airport revenues
KWVeteran - firstly, than you for your service to our country.
I don't really disagree with you, but do remember the context of the article. This was a compilation of ideas / suggestions that UTC marketing students had for generating potential revenue for the airport. I am glad that the students and their professors were out examining real world scenarios to generate realistic possibilities in their constantly-evolving field, versus simply making thier way through a textbook. I probably disagree with more of their suggestions than I agree with (I don't like the over-commercialization we already experience), but I applaud their efforts and am encouraged by their creativity, even if I disagree with their implementation.
State of the Arts: Chattanooga
Generally a good article...thanks for bringing light to what is often an underexposed part of the conversation - it does cost money to have good arts opportunities! This is obviously a surprise to Steve Barrett and his pathetic CTFP commentary on 4/12/09. My main concern is that with so many talented, credible, and credentialed artists already in the area (music, dance, studio arts, etc.) - more per capita than many other places for certain - why aren't we doing more to promote the existing incredible arts oportunities that are already here, instead of committing so many resources to having more artsits move here? If the existing dollars went more towards building up and encouraging people to participate in the existing opportunities, this community would be inherently more arts-oriented, participatory, and - wait for it, Mr Barrett - better.
Holmes to receive first Boys Choir Alumnus Award
What a great honor for a charter member of such a wonderful organization. I'm sure there are many more deserving alumni who will be considered in future years. The Chattanooga Boys Choir is one of the real gems of our community of which we should all be very proud.
‘Be it ever so humble . . .’
Don't forget that John Payne's poem (the "Home, Sweet Home" song you quote) continues: "An exile from home, splendor dazzles in vain; O, give me my lowly thatched cottage again!"
The moral is this - too many people were buying castles when they should have been moving into thatched cottages. Blame the foolish home buyers, blame the unscrupulous mortgage companies, blame the unprincipled banks - any way you look at it, this was a problem of our own doing. I just hate that when it comes time to pay the piper, it's my dollars in taxes that are being used to help out those who should have just plain known better and those companies who were irresponsible enough to give them those loans. Selfishness, greed, and poor planning (or a complete lack thereof) caused this. You can blame Carter and Clinton, but at some point, the home buyers still had the opportunity to say "no" and find something more within their budget.
When I bought my first house, the realtor and mortgage brokers all said that we were approved to buy much more house than we did. After running the numbers, my wife and I knew what we were comfortable in paying (much less than what the banks and realtors tried to entice us to pay), and bought our home accordingly. It is well within our NEEDS, and more importantly, well within our means. I fear too many people heeded the advice of their mortgage lenders and realtors than their own 9th grade economics course.
There are undoubtedly many people who are in danger of foreclosure from circumstances other than those I described above. However, the housing epidemic on a national basis was the most preventable piece of the very difficult puzzle our country now finds itself in. Worse yet, it's a large part of the vicious circle that has caused other portions of our economy to spiral. The fact that my tax dollars are going towards keeping someone in a house he couldn't afford in the first place instead of educating my child, fixing our infrastructure, securing our streets, or advancing our community makes me very upset.
This tack simply has no place in a society that prides itself in capitalism. When the venture of private ownership is compromised, the flawed system must be viewed with skepticism, as the suspicion of government mechanisms (read: “taxpayer help”) will always loom, not allowing true capitalism to flourish.
Tennessee: Refund checks spark debate
This article goes to show just how out of touch some of those in higher education leadership are from the actual educational process as experienced by students. Mr. Stanberry's quote is downright embarassing to our state university system. As students and others in the article made very clear, this money is the amount in scholarships that were not used on tuition and fees ONLY. The actual costs of attending college necessarily include rent, technology, food, books, and a host of other expenses that are, as exhibited in the article, paid for by the erroneously titled 'refund.'
I think the sentence "UT officials say the large number of refunds...shows few students are struggling to find money to pay for college and could afford a tuition increase" is horribly misleading. The struggle to find and earn scholarships and the necessary work to maintain eligibility for them are incredible accomplishments and represent significant effort and time spent as good students and campus citizens. The students who receive the scholarships, in turn, are thus rewarded for their hard work and initiative. It is insulting to imply that these students who earn these rewards do not struggle.