Why the World Might End in 2012...and Why It Might Not

by Tony Otten

theindiepedant.com

Humans have spent heaps of time and kilowatts of brainpower in giving a name to the Great End of everything that is known: Armageddon, the Apocalypse, Judgment Day, the Rapture, the Big Crunch, Doomsday, Tax Day, and Thanksgiving (turkeys only). What most don’t realize today is that an end-of-the-world hysteria clutches the world every ten to twelve years—and obviously, for this cycle to be noticeable, these panics have to be false. Harold Camping, a California radio-preacher with a devoted following, predicted the world would end in 1988, 1994, May 2011 and, finally, October 2011. The only disaster that happened was that Camping had a stroke last June, which probably led to his prediction for October.

            I am a skeptic myself as to whether anyone can know when the world will end, and would be perfectly happy to live and let live if the antics of some Doomsday believers weren’t so troubling. A man in New York City spent his entire life savings of $140,000 on advertisements for Camping’s May 2011 prophecy. Online “survivor” stores are selling Armageddon gear and solar-powered hippie-ovens like the proverbial hotcakes. A reality show called Doomsday Preppers now documents the lives of these believers on the National Geographic Channel. Most of the frenzy is based around the Mayan Prophecy for December 2012, when the ancient calendar cuts off. Despite much mockery of the prediction, millions are still troubled, and even suicidal, over the upcoming date. I have to ask, though: do any of these 2012-believers take other Mayan customs seriously? Do they think they can cause rain by offering up a jaguar’s heart on an altar, or keep the sun in the sky by sacrificing humans to a hungry idol? If they don’t, they need to question their beliefs; if they do, they need to be arrested, for cripes’ sakes.

            While I don’t trust the Mayan panic, I do have a few suggestions for more practical reasons that the world will end. Just to be fair and balanced, I included a few reasons it won’t.

Why We Will All Face Death in the Coming Year:

—Kim Kardashian and her 72-day husband start a reality show about their divorce trial.

—Either Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich has oozed his way into the President’s chair.

—Lions Gate Entertainment announces they are cancelling all sequels to The Hunger Games movie because they made enough money off the first one.

—Lloyd’s 2012 seniors pick “Don’t Stop Believin’” by Journey as their class song.

Why the End-of-the-World Talk is All a Bunch of Woo-Woo:

—The Mayans couldn’t even see their own end coming. What makes you think they could see ours?

—Jersey Shore’s Snooki hasn’t had her baby yet, and we’re all waiting to see if the kid comes out tanned and sporting eyeliner.

—Anchorman 2 starring Will Ferrell hasn’t come out yet. (Oh, wait—that might be a good reason for the world to end. Let’s go, Mayans.)

Would You Like a Report Card or a Pink Slip? A Look at Merit Pay

by Tony Otten
With the economy still sore and countries such as China, India and South (but not North!) Korea rocketing ahead of the U.S. in academics, many states are looking for ways to boost test scores and cut costs at the same time. A few, including Florida, are pushing to put a “merit pay” system in place in schools—mostly this means that teachers would be paid according to what grades their students make, and principals would earn money based on their school’s ranking.

The system might sound strange, but because many states are strapped for cash, it could become a reality. In Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana, legislators are putting forth bills that would take away the rights of teachers’ unions (among others) to make deals for salary, working hours and benefits. This would leave teachers unable to have much say in what they make or how their pay is calculated. Some states, mostly with Tea Party governors, believe merit pay will keep teachers on their toes and force them into making their students successful. But is it fair? That was my survey’s subject.

Instead of interviewing students for this poll, I talked to teachers and school staff—after all, it’s their livelihood at stake. 66% of the teachers said no to merit pay; 33% said yes. However, the ones that answered yes said they would only consider supporting merit pay if the plans were fair and well thought-out, rather than a type of teacher-punishment; no one I spoke to felt very positive about a hard-and-fast system of “If Bobby makes an A, I get $50,000 this year; but if Bobby gets an F, I have to hide my car from the repo man and eat SPAM for six months.”

I can definitely see a teacher’s point of view on this—yes, they want their country to succeed, and yes, they want to prove themselves as hard workers, but no, they don’t want their pay determined by somebody who can’t spell contraception, much less use it.

Governors have no business sinking their teeth into education when most of them were mediocre students themselves—even if they did (like a certain former president) go to Yale. Before they get to decide how much teachers get paid, they should have to be a substitute teacher for one week—oh, and they can’t teach gym class, and they’re not allowed to bring duct tape or a Taser with them into the classroom, even if they beg.

I think even having this argument is ridiculous. If Congress banned earmarks (those trusty blocks of fine print that sent Billions-with-a-B to their pet projects every year), then the U.S. would have so much extra money it could double teachers’ salaries, let them keep their unions, and attract new, high-powered college graduates into education, when they would normally look for jobs with higher pay.

 

But wait! Congress screams. We can’t do that!  How will we pay the psychics we use to predict terrorist attacks? How will we research pond algae in Connecticut cemeteries for $6 million? And for the love of God, how will we survive if we don’t have environmentally-sound spoons in the Capitol Hill cafeteria? To them I say, That’s tough. (These examples are all real, by the way). It comes down to the old maxim—You get what you pay for.

Plus, those spoons melt in the chili, anyway.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally supposed to appear in a March 2011 Tatler, but just didn’t “make it.”