The Republican debate last night in Florida
After reading parts of the transcript for the debate last night, I now wish I had actually watched it. It sounds like it was a lot of fun, with fireworks galore and colorful personalities from left to right (or, rather in their case, from libertarian to fascist). Compared to the Democrats, there are actual ideological and policy differences among the candidates. While the Democrats are splitting hairs about whether every person is covered under so-and-so's health care plan or the precise day in which most of the U.S. troops would pull out of Iraq, you can find Republicans virtually miles apart on every issue.
This is not to say I'd ever vote for any of those loonies, but the fact that they are completely crazy must have made it all the more enjoyable to watch. You've got Ron Paul as this throw-back libertarian being hit over the head by John McCain. McCain called Paul's position on Iraq "isolationist" and indicated that American isolationism led to WWII. While Paul might be best described as "isolationist", having a particular stance on Iraq does not make one so. Moreover, saying that isolationism caused WWII is a bit extreme (hmm, I don't suppose that the rise of fascists, like Rudy Giuliani, had anything to do with it). Nonetheless, Paul is a bit out there, but he's got great entertainment value.
Then, you've got McCain and Romney tussling over waterboarding. Romney goes for the slimiest approach possible (i.e. the Bush approach) and pretends that it plays into the hands of the terrorists to define torture and, thus, cannot say whether waterboarding is torture but can say that he would never condone torture. What a loser. Maybe he should try reading any of the articles written by former generals, colonels, etc., intelligence officers, POWs, and WWII vets on this issue. But then, when you're a Mitt Romney, there's no way that the military officers could know a thing or two, is there?
On the other hand, Romney gets credit for putting the Confederate flag into its place, at least somewhat into its place. A stronger rebuke would be better -- you know, something grounded in history that shows exactly why all the pro-Confederate flag people are wrong. But still, just for taking the stand he did in front of an audience that almost certainly included many closet racists took some courage.
Then, you've got Rudy Giuliani being pestered by scandals. Would you expect any different from someone who was once the mayor of New York? That is the land of Tammany Hall.
And finally, you've got Mike Huckabee who was grilled (ha! yeah right, "gently probed" is a better description) about the issue of capital punishment, being a Christian, and, of course, the "what would Jesus do" issue. See, Mike, when you go around claiming the whole "I'm the best Christian up here" thing going on, people are going to start pointing out the inconsistencies between Christianity and the popular stances on issue (e.g. capital punishment, abortion, etc.). His response "Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office" was cute for the audience but, for anyone with a brain, should have required the retort: "So, does that mean you're stupid or that you're deliberately doing the opposite of what Jesus would do?" I mean, let's face it: No one, Democrat or Republican, is really a Christian on the issues. They use Christianity to support their arguments ONLY when it's convenient. When it's not, they drop their pretend Christianity and, only once in a blue moon, does someone actually call them on it to their face.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Social Security and other problems
Since the 2004 elections, Social Security has been a recurring pop-up in politics. It's considered the "third rail", as politicians who touch it are always electrocuted. In fact, the beginning of Bush's plunge and the resuscitation of the Congressional Democrats was Bush's foray into "fixing" Social Security and the Democratic resistance to the plan. The Washington Post recently ran an editorial praising Obama and, to some degree, Edwards for having the courage to suggest fixes to Social Security while criticizing Hillary Clinton's "dodge" on answering the question about it. And, of course, Fred Thompson has recently had the courage to also suggest a fix to Social Security. I should note that none of their fixes completely fix the problem.
What is most interesting about the debate on this issue is that, relatively speaking, the problem with Social Security is minor and easily fixed, compared with the two other looming disasters facing this country: Medicare/Medicaid (perhaps also including health care as a whole) and global warming. The Medicare/Medicaid/general health care issue is vast in its complexity and virtually impossible to get a political handle on. It touches more than just money -- it touches life and death. It asks for a value on our health and, presumably, on our lives. Social Security is a mere shadow of the third rail that Medicare/Medicaid are. Medicare/Medicaid WILL bankrupt the government, whereas the money flow problem with SS will eventually cause SS payouts to be 70% of what they should be. Ironically, 70% of what the SS payments should be will actually be higher, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than what SS payments are today. In other words, this is not nearly the same fiscal problem.
Global warming, like the health care problems in this country, is vast in its complexity and is tremendously unpredictable in its effects. Moreover, the "fix" for global warming is nearly impossible unless we're willing to back off on our economic growth and ask developing countries to essentially become stagnant. It also requires the cooperation of everyone on the planet, which at least SS and Medicare/Medicaid do not require. Of course, the suggested "fix" by those not serious about the problem (e.g. George Bush) is alternative technologies. Yeah, sounds great, but when is that going to happen? Because we're looking at increasingly disastrous effects of global warming over the next 10 years -- the next 100 will be too late.
Which brings me back to SS. When you consider these other issues, you realize that SS is quite trivial by comparison. There are three ways to "fix" the problem, all of which should be used. First, the Obama and Edwards idea: Raise the cap on SS taxes. Well, duh. SS taxes (and Medicare/Medicaid taxes as well -- i.e. payroll taxes) are regressive. They are responsible, in part, for the fact that Warren Buffett pays less in taxes, as a % of his income, than his secretaries do. However, I would favor decreasing the payroll tax % while increasing the cap to help reduce the regressiveness of the tax.
Second, the age limit needs to be raised for when someone can start taking SS payments. The age limit was set at a time when people didn't live long after retirement. Now, for some reason, people think that the government, via current workers, should be financing you for the last third of your life. Sorry, but mathematically that just doesn't work out and is absurd anyway. No one should be guaranteed an early retirement. The age limit should be set based on the average American lifespan -- i.e. figure out how many more years someone will live rather than how many years they have already lived.
Third, cut the rate of increase in SS payments. This one is a little trickier. The increase in SS payments is based on wage growth -- not inflation, which is lower. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, when incoming money will not cover outgoing SS money, people will be receiving 70% of what they should be getting, which will still be higher than people are getting today, in inflation-adjusted dollars. Nonetheless, those who suggest tying the increase to inflation are wrong for a simple reason that I was reading about the other day. The elderly, because their money is spent on different things, face a different -- and higher -- rate of inflation than the rest of us. Instead, a tiered system will need to be put in place, whereby those in the lower income brackets get SS payments that increase based on wage growth and those in the higher brackets get increases based on inflation. Of course, this would be on a scale as you move from lower to higher, but it would help prevent the lower incomes from falling into poverty in their later years.
These three suggestions will never be adopted because they hit all three potential fixes, thereby arousing hatred on all sides of the issue. The only way this could ever pass Congress is if a bipartison commission came up with it and Congress had to vote in an up-or-down manner (like the BRAC proposals) on the proposed "fix" to SS. To bring this article full circle, the Post called Clinton's answer to the question about SS a "dodge" because she proposed a bipartisan commission to deal with the issue. Hmph. Sounds politically more realistic than coming up with a proposal that tackles only one aspect of the problem (like Obama, Edwards, and Thompson) while ignoring the others.
Since the 2004 elections, Social Security has been a recurring pop-up in politics. It's considered the "third rail", as politicians who touch it are always electrocuted. In fact, the beginning of Bush's plunge and the resuscitation of the Congressional Democrats was Bush's foray into "fixing" Social Security and the Democratic resistance to the plan. The Washington Post recently ran an editorial praising Obama and, to some degree, Edwards for having the courage to suggest fixes to Social Security while criticizing Hillary Clinton's "dodge" on answering the question about it. And, of course, Fred Thompson has recently had the courage to also suggest a fix to Social Security. I should note that none of their fixes completely fix the problem.
What is most interesting about the debate on this issue is that, relatively speaking, the problem with Social Security is minor and easily fixed, compared with the two other looming disasters facing this country: Medicare/Medicaid (perhaps also including health care as a whole) and global warming. The Medicare/Medicaid/general health care issue is vast in its complexity and virtually impossible to get a political handle on. It touches more than just money -- it touches life and death. It asks for a value on our health and, presumably, on our lives. Social Security is a mere shadow of the third rail that Medicare/Medicaid are. Medicare/Medicaid WILL bankrupt the government, whereas the money flow problem with SS will eventually cause SS payouts to be 70% of what they should be. Ironically, 70% of what the SS payments should be will actually be higher, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than what SS payments are today. In other words, this is not nearly the same fiscal problem.
Global warming, like the health care problems in this country, is vast in its complexity and is tremendously unpredictable in its effects. Moreover, the "fix" for global warming is nearly impossible unless we're willing to back off on our economic growth and ask developing countries to essentially become stagnant. It also requires the cooperation of everyone on the planet, which at least SS and Medicare/Medicaid do not require. Of course, the suggested "fix" by those not serious about the problem (e.g. George Bush) is alternative technologies. Yeah, sounds great, but when is that going to happen? Because we're looking at increasingly disastrous effects of global warming over the next 10 years -- the next 100 will be too late.
Which brings me back to SS. When you consider these other issues, you realize that SS is quite trivial by comparison. There are three ways to "fix" the problem, all of which should be used. First, the Obama and Edwards idea: Raise the cap on SS taxes. Well, duh. SS taxes (and Medicare/Medicaid taxes as well -- i.e. payroll taxes) are regressive. They are responsible, in part, for the fact that Warren Buffett pays less in taxes, as a % of his income, than his secretaries do. However, I would favor decreasing the payroll tax % while increasing the cap to help reduce the regressiveness of the tax.
Second, the age limit needs to be raised for when someone can start taking SS payments. The age limit was set at a time when people didn't live long after retirement. Now, for some reason, people think that the government, via current workers, should be financing you for the last third of your life. Sorry, but mathematically that just doesn't work out and is absurd anyway. No one should be guaranteed an early retirement. The age limit should be set based on the average American lifespan -- i.e. figure out how many more years someone will live rather than how many years they have already lived.
Third, cut the rate of increase in SS payments. This one is a little trickier. The increase in SS payments is based on wage growth -- not inflation, which is lower. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, when incoming money will not cover outgoing SS money, people will be receiving 70% of what they should be getting, which will still be higher than people are getting today, in inflation-adjusted dollars. Nonetheless, those who suggest tying the increase to inflation are wrong for a simple reason that I was reading about the other day. The elderly, because their money is spent on different things, face a different -- and higher -- rate of inflation than the rest of us. Instead, a tiered system will need to be put in place, whereby those in the lower income brackets get SS payments that increase based on wage growth and those in the higher brackets get increases based on inflation. Of course, this would be on a scale as you move from lower to higher, but it would help prevent the lower incomes from falling into poverty in their later years.
These three suggestions will never be adopted because they hit all three potential fixes, thereby arousing hatred on all sides of the issue. The only way this could ever pass Congress is if a bipartison commission came up with it and Congress had to vote in an up-or-down manner (like the BRAC proposals) on the proposed "fix" to SS. To bring this article full circle, the Post called Clinton's answer to the question about SS a "dodge" because she proposed a bipartisan commission to deal with the issue. Hmph. Sounds politically more realistic than coming up with a proposal that tackles only one aspect of the problem (like Obama, Edwards, and Thompson) while ignoring the others.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Frightening
I've been reading for a while now about staph infections that are resistant to most antibiotics. This is, of course, what scientists and health professionals have been predicting and worried about for years. An article appearing today reports on two other articles in JAMA dealing with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In one of the articles, the researchers concluded that antibiotic-resistant staph kills more people than AIDS in this country every year. That should be sobering news.
However, will anything be done about this problem? Due to the very nature of public health, this must be handled at the federal level, but the likelihood of that happening is nil. It would require stopping the profligate use of antibiotics in animal feed and it would require Republicans to be willing to acknowledge that the federal government has uses beyond conquering other countries and enriching their already-rich friends.
Also, it would require Repubs to actually believe scientists. For some reason, Republicans have decided that they know the natural world better than scientists and that "science" is some sort of leftist pursuit, full of alarmists and malcontents. This, of course, is why Republicans have scoffed at global warming, first asserting that it didn't exist, then asserting that humans didn't cause it, then asserting that it wouldn't be that bad, and finally asserting that there is nothing we can do about it. What amazes me is their ability to hold all four of those positions simultaneously. They also don't care for the Big Bang Theory and the age of the universe, which is why a Bush appointee at NASA worked so hard to scrub references to the universe being billions of years old from various PR stuff. The Republicans have worked hard to discredit EPA scientists as well, with Christine Todd Whitman leading the way after 9/11 insisting that the air around the WTC was perfectly safe (it was anything but). They've also tried to bring down the FDA to the level of politics. And, finally, you have the embarrassing belief among Repubs that intelligent design should be taught alongside or in place of evolution in the classroom. Among other Repubs, they just want creationism pure and simple.
It is, of course, no surprise to me or to anyone with a brain that so many scientists (particularly, those of a biological persuasion) have turned sharply left in their politics. Scientists realize that, if empirical evidence cannot convince someone, there is little left to do but vote against the person. And, of course, apologize to their international colleagues for Bush.
I've been reading for a while now about staph infections that are resistant to most antibiotics. This is, of course, what scientists and health professionals have been predicting and worried about for years. An article appearing today reports on two other articles in JAMA dealing with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In one of the articles, the researchers concluded that antibiotic-resistant staph kills more people than AIDS in this country every year. That should be sobering news.
However, will anything be done about this problem? Due to the very nature of public health, this must be handled at the federal level, but the likelihood of that happening is nil. It would require stopping the profligate use of antibiotics in animal feed and it would require Republicans to be willing to acknowledge that the federal government has uses beyond conquering other countries and enriching their already-rich friends.
Also, it would require Repubs to actually believe scientists. For some reason, Republicans have decided that they know the natural world better than scientists and that "science" is some sort of leftist pursuit, full of alarmists and malcontents. This, of course, is why Republicans have scoffed at global warming, first asserting that it didn't exist, then asserting that humans didn't cause it, then asserting that it wouldn't be that bad, and finally asserting that there is nothing we can do about it. What amazes me is their ability to hold all four of those positions simultaneously. They also don't care for the Big Bang Theory and the age of the universe, which is why a Bush appointee at NASA worked so hard to scrub references to the universe being billions of years old from various PR stuff. The Republicans have worked hard to discredit EPA scientists as well, with Christine Todd Whitman leading the way after 9/11 insisting that the air around the WTC was perfectly safe (it was anything but). They've also tried to bring down the FDA to the level of politics. And, finally, you have the embarrassing belief among Repubs that intelligent design should be taught alongside or in place of evolution in the classroom. Among other Repubs, they just want creationism pure and simple.
It is, of course, no surprise to me or to anyone with a brain that so many scientists (particularly, those of a biological persuasion) have turned sharply left in their politics. Scientists realize that, if empirical evidence cannot convince someone, there is little left to do but vote against the person. And, of course, apologize to their international colleagues for Bush.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Interesting Poll and a Prediction
An interesting poll of Virginians recently came out in the Post. It's interesting for a variety of reasons. If you're following Virginia politics and thinking about the upcoming 2007 state legislative elections or the 2008 U.S. Senate race for the open seat vacated by John Warner, well, it provides a little insight there. More interesting than that, though, are the findings regarding the presidential race.
Virginia has been a very "red" state since 1968 (last voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 1964). In recent years, however, there has been a slight shift, albeit at the gubernatorial level, as Democrats have held onto the governor's mansion since 2001. In this most recent poll, 52% of people wanted the next president to be a Democrat (compared to 41% for a Republican). As most people should point out, the "generic" Democrat vs. Republican is not a good indicator of how people will actually vote. In fact, one of the main arguments put forth by Karl Rove and others is that, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will not win the general election simply because her negatives are too high. So, the argument goes that Hillary Clinton couldn't possibly win a state like Virginia, regardless of the "generic" contest. Rudy Giuliani has recently made the argument that he is the only Republican candidate who can beat Clinton (clearly, his argument rests on different premises from Rove's as it assumes an all-powerful Clinton).
HOWEVER, further down in the poll, they ask people who they would DEFINITELY NOT VOTE for in the general election. Giuliani actually manages to score 1 point higher (i.e. worse) than Clinton. 45% of polled Virginians would not vote for Giuliani vs. 44% of Virginians who would not vote for Clinton (obviously, this within the margin of error). This should not be comforting news to those Republicans who have been counting on Clinton's negatives to carry the day for them. In fact, the top three candidates in terms of voters that would NOT vote for them are, in order: Romney (53%), Thompson (48%), and Giuliani. Coincidentally, these are also the top three Republicans (according to national polls) vying for the Republican nomination. With such high "negatives" in a state like Virginia, it makes you wonder how any of these guys could possibly win the general election.
Nonetheless, here's my prediction for something occurring in 13 months: The election will be very close, decided by less than 3 points. You may wonder how I could say this after making a case for a blowout, but I do not underestimate the power of each side to throw the usual labels at the other, causing voters to pigeonhole them and then split, in their usual fashion, right down the middle. Clinton will be painted as a liberal, though as any liberal will tell you, she's far from a liberal, and thus her numbers will be dragged down. A couple of grandmas in Ohio could make the difference in the election simply because they like Clinton's hair or have a thing for bald liars like Giuliani.
An interesting poll of Virginians recently came out in the Post. It's interesting for a variety of reasons. If you're following Virginia politics and thinking about the upcoming 2007 state legislative elections or the 2008 U.S. Senate race for the open seat vacated by John Warner, well, it provides a little insight there. More interesting than that, though, are the findings regarding the presidential race.
Virginia has been a very "red" state since 1968 (last voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 1964). In recent years, however, there has been a slight shift, albeit at the gubernatorial level, as Democrats have held onto the governor's mansion since 2001. In this most recent poll, 52% of people wanted the next president to be a Democrat (compared to 41% for a Republican). As most people should point out, the "generic" Democrat vs. Republican is not a good indicator of how people will actually vote. In fact, one of the main arguments put forth by Karl Rove and others is that, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will not win the general election simply because her negatives are too high. So, the argument goes that Hillary Clinton couldn't possibly win a state like Virginia, regardless of the "generic" contest. Rudy Giuliani has recently made the argument that he is the only Republican candidate who can beat Clinton (clearly, his argument rests on different premises from Rove's as it assumes an all-powerful Clinton).
HOWEVER, further down in the poll, they ask people who they would DEFINITELY NOT VOTE for in the general election. Giuliani actually manages to score 1 point higher (i.e. worse) than Clinton. 45% of polled Virginians would not vote for Giuliani vs. 44% of Virginians who would not vote for Clinton (obviously, this within the margin of error). This should not be comforting news to those Republicans who have been counting on Clinton's negatives to carry the day for them. In fact, the top three candidates in terms of voters that would NOT vote for them are, in order: Romney (53%), Thompson (48%), and Giuliani. Coincidentally, these are also the top three Republicans (according to national polls) vying for the Republican nomination. With such high "negatives" in a state like Virginia, it makes you wonder how any of these guys could possibly win the general election.
Nonetheless, here's my prediction for something occurring in 13 months: The election will be very close, decided by less than 3 points. You may wonder how I could say this after making a case for a blowout, but I do not underestimate the power of each side to throw the usual labels at the other, causing voters to pigeonhole them and then split, in their usual fashion, right down the middle. Clinton will be painted as a liberal, though as any liberal will tell you, she's far from a liberal, and thus her numbers will be dragged down. A couple of grandmas in Ohio could make the difference in the election simply because they like Clinton's hair or have a thing for bald liars like Giuliani.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
A Few Political Thoughts for the Day
1. Despite being out there in some ways, I have tremendous respect for Ron Paul just for saying some of the things he says and saying them unabashedly. He was absolutely right that some of our actions in the Middle East contributed to the anger directed at us by various radical Muslims, including al-Qaeda, which led to the 9/11 attacks. This does not mitigate the responsibility of al-Qaeda or even render us responsible for 9/11. It's simply an acknowledgement that our actions around the world can and do piss people off, particularly when some of our actions are anything but morally upright themselves. And sometimes that anger comes back and hits us. To say this, though, and take the inevitable hits from Hizzoner "the Bald Liar" Giuliani was courageous.
2. If Hillary Clinton's health care plan for guaranteeing health insurance for every American is "socialized medicine", as many of the Republican presidential candidates have termed it, then what is Britain's or France's health care system? I ask because anyone with half a brain could plainly see that Clinton's plan is nothing, not even remotely, like the European model. The Clinton health care system would not be government-owned or -operated and the health insurance would not be governmental insurance. Better yet, to Mr. Romney, how is her plan qualitatively different from the one you enacted in Massachusetts?
3. Um, does anyone else think that all involved in the "situation" regarding the Congressional resolution that what happened in 1915 between the Ottoman Empire and the Armenians was genocide are just a little crazy? I mean, first, what the heck is our House of Reps doing even worrying about genocides that occurred nearly 100 years ago by a now-defunct empire? Second, the response by Turkey is just as absurd. They're trying to use this meaningless resolution to drum up nationalistic, anti-American feelings and to find an excuse to threaten and potentially attack the Kurds in northern Iraq. Finally, from an Armenian survivor: '"I don't like Turkey -- they are animals there," reported Perouz Kalousdian, 97.'
Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that they have all lost their marbles. Maybe we should just leave categorizations regarding historical events to . . . well, historians.
1. Despite being out there in some ways, I have tremendous respect for Ron Paul just for saying some of the things he says and saying them unabashedly. He was absolutely right that some of our actions in the Middle East contributed to the anger directed at us by various radical Muslims, including al-Qaeda, which led to the 9/11 attacks. This does not mitigate the responsibility of al-Qaeda or even render us responsible for 9/11. It's simply an acknowledgement that our actions around the world can and do piss people off, particularly when some of our actions are anything but morally upright themselves. And sometimes that anger comes back and hits us. To say this, though, and take the inevitable hits from Hizzoner "the Bald Liar" Giuliani was courageous.
2. If Hillary Clinton's health care plan for guaranteeing health insurance for every American is "socialized medicine", as many of the Republican presidential candidates have termed it, then what is Britain's or France's health care system? I ask because anyone with half a brain could plainly see that Clinton's plan is nothing, not even remotely, like the European model. The Clinton health care system would not be government-owned or -operated and the health insurance would not be governmental insurance. Better yet, to Mr. Romney, how is her plan qualitatively different from the one you enacted in Massachusetts?
3. Um, does anyone else think that all involved in the "situation" regarding the Congressional resolution that what happened in 1915 between the Ottoman Empire and the Armenians was genocide are just a little crazy? I mean, first, what the heck is our House of Reps doing even worrying about genocides that occurred nearly 100 years ago by a now-defunct empire? Second, the response by Turkey is just as absurd. They're trying to use this meaningless resolution to drum up nationalistic, anti-American feelings and to find an excuse to threaten and potentially attack the Kurds in northern Iraq. Finally, from an Armenian survivor: '"I don't like Turkey -- they are animals there," reported Perouz Kalousdian, 97.'
Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that they have all lost their marbles. Maybe we should just leave categorizations regarding historical events to . . . well, historians.
Monday, September 24, 2007
The Jena 6
If you've been following the Jena 6 case at all, you probably have developed a point of view about the whole situation. Or, if you've tried to follow it a little closer as I've been trying to do, you'd probably find that it just becomes more and more confusing as you delve into it. I was going to post my thoughts about what happened before, but the facts of the case became less clear the more I read articles. Different people reported different things, leaving me wondering if anyone really knew what was going on.
However, I have found a great summary article that puts to rest some of the myths and distortions about the case, but I can't really say "all" because I doubt we know them all yet. Needless to say, the article paints a picture rather in the middle between those who see this as the start of the 21st century civil rights movement (e.g. Al Sharpton) and those who think racism and discrimination don't exist anywhere in this country, let alone Jena.
What I think is truly unfortunate is that this case is what has galvanized much of the civil rights people across the country. If this case really is the start of the 21st century civil rights movement, then it is a sad day for that movement. Were the Jena 6 overcharged? Probably. Are they innocent? No. In fact, they beat a kid unconscious -- hardly what some are calling "just a schoolyard fight". And the one still in jail has a prior criminal record including battery. Should the noose incident have been reported to the police? Yes, but the federal authorities wouldn't have done anything because they don't pursue hate crimes against juveniles. Should those responsible for the nooses have faced harsher punishments? Yes, but they faced expulsion at first, but the school board overruled the principal. However, contrary to popular belief, they were not suspended for three days -- rather, they went to an "alternative" school for one month before facing an in-school suspension for two weeks. Moreover, was there even a relationship between the noose incident and the beating? According to the U.S. attorney, no.
Without going into even more detail, I find the case to be the usual mixture of things, with some discrimination involved, but hardly the kind of case you would want to make the poster case for the civil rights movement. What I find particularly irritating, though, is the repeated muddling of the truth by various columnists and radio people around the country who make wrong and spurious claims (e.g. connecting the nooses with the fight). As I said, it's a sad time for the civil rights movement when a case that requires lies and distortions to be compelling becomes their rallying point.
If you've been following the Jena 6 case at all, you probably have developed a point of view about the whole situation. Or, if you've tried to follow it a little closer as I've been trying to do, you'd probably find that it just becomes more and more confusing as you delve into it. I was going to post my thoughts about what happened before, but the facts of the case became less clear the more I read articles. Different people reported different things, leaving me wondering if anyone really knew what was going on.
However, I have found a great summary article that puts to rest some of the myths and distortions about the case, but I can't really say "all" because I doubt we know them all yet. Needless to say, the article paints a picture rather in the middle between those who see this as the start of the 21st century civil rights movement (e.g. Al Sharpton) and those who think racism and discrimination don't exist anywhere in this country, let alone Jena.
What I think is truly unfortunate is that this case is what has galvanized much of the civil rights people across the country. If this case really is the start of the 21st century civil rights movement, then it is a sad day for that movement. Were the Jena 6 overcharged? Probably. Are they innocent? No. In fact, they beat a kid unconscious -- hardly what some are calling "just a schoolyard fight". And the one still in jail has a prior criminal record including battery. Should the noose incident have been reported to the police? Yes, but the federal authorities wouldn't have done anything because they don't pursue hate crimes against juveniles. Should those responsible for the nooses have faced harsher punishments? Yes, but they faced expulsion at first, but the school board overruled the principal. However, contrary to popular belief, they were not suspended for three days -- rather, they went to an "alternative" school for one month before facing an in-school suspension for two weeks. Moreover, was there even a relationship between the noose incident and the beating? According to the U.S. attorney, no.
Without going into even more detail, I find the case to be the usual mixture of things, with some discrimination involved, but hardly the kind of case you would want to make the poster case for the civil rights movement. What I find particularly irritating, though, is the repeated muddling of the truth by various columnists and radio people around the country who make wrong and spurious claims (e.g. connecting the nooses with the fight). As I said, it's a sad time for the civil rights movement when a case that requires lies and distortions to be compelling becomes their rallying point.
Friday, September 21, 2007
I knew Bush believed in his tax cuts, but to this extent?
As I just posted before, Bush mistakenly believes things about his tax cuts, and of course, we all know that Republican ideology essentially centers around tax cuts to the point that we all pay negative taxes. However, I was unaware of how effective these tax cuts were in terms of corporate malfeasance and Osama bin Laden, but this is a quote from Bush from yesterday:
"We dealt with a recession, a terrorist attack and corporate scandals. And we did it by cutting taxes."
LOL! The best part is that I know the Kool-Aid drinking Republicans will now actually believe this. Soon, Fox News will start accusing those who want to raise taxes of trying to instigate terrorist attacks and corporate scandals. Ah, to be a Republican and live in a fantasy world . . .
As I just posted before, Bush mistakenly believes things about his tax cuts, and of course, we all know that Republican ideology essentially centers around tax cuts to the point that we all pay negative taxes. However, I was unaware of how effective these tax cuts were in terms of corporate malfeasance and Osama bin Laden, but this is a quote from Bush from yesterday:
"We dealt with a recession, a terrorist attack and corporate scandals. And we did it by cutting taxes."
LOL! The best part is that I know the Kool-Aid drinking Republicans will now actually believe this. Soon, Fox News will start accusing those who want to raise taxes of trying to instigate terrorist attacks and corporate scandals. Ah, to be a Republican and live in a fantasy world . . .
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Lying Liar Strikes Again
Bush recently decided (he is the decider, after all, right?) to change basic economics and history with his latest statement that his tax cuts helped shrink the federal budget deficit. One of the great Republican lies that Republicans continue perpetuating. Of course, it turns out that even his own Administration's economists do not agree (if you read further in the article). I guess some of his economists have managed to avoid the Kool-Aid for the day. They'll probably be fired tomorrow and replaced with people more incompetent. Certainly wouldn't want anyone showing up the president.
Bush recently decided (he is the decider, after all, right?) to change basic economics and history with his latest statement that his tax cuts helped shrink the federal budget deficit. One of the great Republican lies that Republicans continue perpetuating. Of course, it turns out that even his own Administration's economists do not agree (if you read further in the article). I guess some of his economists have managed to avoid the Kool-Aid for the day. They'll probably be fired tomorrow and replaced with people more incompetent. Certainly wouldn't want anyone showing up the president.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Sorry one more
I remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan's saying, "People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." This one applies to Bush and supporting conservatives. Certainly, one is free to argue about troop levels in any way one wants -- but you gotta do it with the real facts. Not your own wishes and dreams.
I remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan's saying, "People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." This one applies to Bush and supporting conservatives. Certainly, one is free to argue about troop levels in any way one wants -- but you gotta do it with the real facts. Not your own wishes and dreams.
And another column (a rather long one) that goes through exactly how Bush is a lying liar (based on his speech last night). I presume conservatives will continue to buy into Bush's nutcase version of reality, although, to be fair, not all do so. As I mentioned, George Will doesn't seem to buy a shred of it, but Charles Krauthammer is still drinking the Kool-Aid.
This makes me wonder about something: What is it about conservatives that make them "follow the leader" right over a cliff (metaphorically speaking)? I mean, if Bush declared Canada Enemy #1 and threw them into the "axis of evil", would conservatives jump on board? When it comes to Iraq, it isn't just the lack of evidence for Bush's version of reality that's bothersome -- it's the complete evidence to the contrary that is so disturbing. So back to my question: Why do conservatives not engage in a little critical thinking on this issue? Clearly, between conservatives and liberals, authoritarianism is not balanced equally across the spectrum (and, no, I'm not going to go to the extremes of Communism and Nazism -- they're the extremes that prove the saying "Opposite extremes produce like effects". I am merely looking at the American liberals and conservatives, who, in the grand scheme of things, actually fall in a relatively narrow part of the spectrum). Does that explain it? Are conservatives just, on average, more enamored of authoritarianism and, thus, more willing to accept the "commander-in-chief"'s claims? Certainly, they didn't mind using the argument that we shouldn't question the commander-in-chief during a war back in the 2004 presidential campaign.
I also feel quite safe saying that liberals are, on average, less enamored of authoritarianism. Frequently, conservatives make fun of liberals for having so many different directions. The presidential primary system is famous for having the Republican Party come up with one guy early on, while the Democrats go in a million different directions, listening to no one in particular. This election season may be a bit unusual in that respect.
Could this explanation really be it? I hope not. It's a bit disturbing because it suggests that these guys still supporting Bush don't think. I wonder if they've ever thought a thought in their entire lives -- certainly, they've never thought one that requires any sort of critical thinking.
This makes me wonder about something: What is it about conservatives that make them "follow the leader" right over a cliff (metaphorically speaking)? I mean, if Bush declared Canada Enemy #1 and threw them into the "axis of evil", would conservatives jump on board? When it comes to Iraq, it isn't just the lack of evidence for Bush's version of reality that's bothersome -- it's the complete evidence to the contrary that is so disturbing. So back to my question: Why do conservatives not engage in a little critical thinking on this issue? Clearly, between conservatives and liberals, authoritarianism is not balanced equally across the spectrum (and, no, I'm not going to go to the extremes of Communism and Nazism -- they're the extremes that prove the saying "Opposite extremes produce like effects". I am merely looking at the American liberals and conservatives, who, in the grand scheme of things, actually fall in a relatively narrow part of the spectrum). Does that explain it? Are conservatives just, on average, more enamored of authoritarianism and, thus, more willing to accept the "commander-in-chief"'s claims? Certainly, they didn't mind using the argument that we shouldn't question the commander-in-chief during a war back in the 2004 presidential campaign.
I also feel quite safe saying that liberals are, on average, less enamored of authoritarianism. Frequently, conservatives make fun of liberals for having so many different directions. The presidential primary system is famous for having the Republican Party come up with one guy early on, while the Democrats go in a million different directions, listening to no one in particular. This election season may be a bit unusual in that respect.
Could this explanation really be it? I hope not. It's a bit disturbing because it suggests that these guys still supporting Bush don't think. I wonder if they've ever thought a thought in their entire lives -- certainly, they've never thought one that requires any sort of critical thinking.
Since we're on the subject . . .
of the "surge", I might as well post one more time about the topic, especially since Bush gave his much-awaited speech on Iraq and the surge last night. One of the important things that must be done with any Bush speech is to determine how far from reality he deviated and whether such deviations are trivial or critical to the arguments of the speech. As usual with Bush, he deviated quite a bit and on issues critical to the overall points he was trying to win with the American public.
The Washington Post actually ran a "fact-check" article just to go over the things that Bush got wrong. For a newspaper that unequivocally supports Bush's Iraq plans, this is rather amusing. Essentially, they knew that Bush was a lying liar and that he would lie his way through his speech last night. So, they got prepared to comb through his speech and find all the glaring problems. I'll let you read the article to see the biggies, but surely one of the most obvious was his assertion that "Iraq's national leaders are getting things done", a critical assertion because the overall goal of the "surge" was to give said leaders "breathing room" to get "things done". (It is the lack of a political reconciliation that makes the "surge" a failure, according to Bush's own standards set out last winter.) Unfortunately, his example of sharing oil revenue was absolutely incorrect and, as of today, no deal exists on that issue.
But perhaps most deceptive of all was his statement that the surge-level of troops could be reduced due to the successes of the surge itself. This is utter nonsense as commentators on both the left and right pointed out, as in fact, the surge level of troops could never have been more than temporary due to deployment schedules. Analysts pointed this out last winter and spring after Bush proposed his surge. Therefore, had the surge NOT worked, troop levels still would have been reduced to "pre-surge" levels. Even the Post editorial supporting Bush (with both fingers in their ears and a third hand covering their eyes) acknowledges this.
More than that, though, is the utter lack of logic in Bush's statement on reducing the surge back to pre-surge levels. If the increase in troops has brought about an important increase in security missing at pre-surge levels, wouldn't it be logical, therefore, to argue for KEEPING the extra troops in Iraq? I mean, if pre-surge levels aren't sufficient, then why return to those levels? The whole Bush argument is absurd. In fact, if Petraeus and Crocker are right that we need these levels of troops to prevent the return to sectarian violence, doesn't this mean that Bush believes his top general and top civilian in Iraq are just plain wrong? At least Petraeus and Crocker are consistent -- yes, if you want to keep the reversible gains that you have achieved, then you will need to keep the circumstances in place that have produced those gains.
But, of course, my argument is naive. As I mentioned, Bush never had any intention of keeping the "surge" going -- deployment schedules would have made it impossible, unless Bush chose to extend deployment times dramatically. That, however, was politically unpalatable and would have sent his own party into a massive intra-party war and eventual tailspin (as if the 2008 elections won't produce enough of a loss of Republican senators). Such a step would have been, as the Post calls it, "politically explosive". At least, it would have been honest and logical.
of the "surge", I might as well post one more time about the topic, especially since Bush gave his much-awaited speech on Iraq and the surge last night. One of the important things that must be done with any Bush speech is to determine how far from reality he deviated and whether such deviations are trivial or critical to the arguments of the speech. As usual with Bush, he deviated quite a bit and on issues critical to the overall points he was trying to win with the American public.
The Washington Post actually ran a "fact-check" article just to go over the things that Bush got wrong. For a newspaper that unequivocally supports Bush's Iraq plans, this is rather amusing. Essentially, they knew that Bush was a lying liar and that he would lie his way through his speech last night. So, they got prepared to comb through his speech and find all the glaring problems. I'll let you read the article to see the biggies, but surely one of the most obvious was his assertion that "Iraq's national leaders are getting things done", a critical assertion because the overall goal of the "surge" was to give said leaders "breathing room" to get "things done". (It is the lack of a political reconciliation that makes the "surge" a failure, according to Bush's own standards set out last winter.) Unfortunately, his example of sharing oil revenue was absolutely incorrect and, as of today, no deal exists on that issue.
But perhaps most deceptive of all was his statement that the surge-level of troops could be reduced due to the successes of the surge itself. This is utter nonsense as commentators on both the left and right pointed out, as in fact, the surge level of troops could never have been more than temporary due to deployment schedules. Analysts pointed this out last winter and spring after Bush proposed his surge. Therefore, had the surge NOT worked, troop levels still would have been reduced to "pre-surge" levels. Even the Post editorial supporting Bush (with both fingers in their ears and a third hand covering their eyes) acknowledges this.
More than that, though, is the utter lack of logic in Bush's statement on reducing the surge back to pre-surge levels. If the increase in troops has brought about an important increase in security missing at pre-surge levels, wouldn't it be logical, therefore, to argue for KEEPING the extra troops in Iraq? I mean, if pre-surge levels aren't sufficient, then why return to those levels? The whole Bush argument is absurd. In fact, if Petraeus and Crocker are right that we need these levels of troops to prevent the return to sectarian violence, doesn't this mean that Bush believes his top general and top civilian in Iraq are just plain wrong? At least Petraeus and Crocker are consistent -- yes, if you want to keep the reversible gains that you have achieved, then you will need to keep the circumstances in place that have produced those gains.
But, of course, my argument is naive. As I mentioned, Bush never had any intention of keeping the "surge" going -- deployment schedules would have made it impossible, unless Bush chose to extend deployment times dramatically. That, however, was politically unpalatable and would have sent his own party into a massive intra-party war and eventual tailspin (as if the 2008 elections won't produce enough of a loss of Republican senators). Such a step would have been, as the Post calls it, "politically explosive". At least, it would have been honest and logical.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Ouch!
I should also mention this column by Eugene Robinson. He goes into greater detail and criticism of the "kicking-the-can" phenomenon which has been the Bush Administration's playbook for Iraq for quite a while now.
I should also mention this column by Eugene Robinson. He goes into greater detail and criticism of the "kicking-the-can" phenomenon which has been the Bush Administration's playbook for Iraq for quite a while now.
Post-Petraeus Report (oh, and Crocker, too)
So, we've now made it to September -- that month that loomed in the back of our heads that was supposed to tell us everything. That month that President Bush promised would provide us with the much needed info on the Iraq "surge" (if a roughly 25% increase in troops can be considered a "surge", especially when original military estimates for occupying the country were closer to a 200-300% larger force than we had pre-surge). That month that Bush asked the country to be patient for. Well, it, and the Petraeus Report, arrived. And, we were told to be patient -- again. To paraphrase Dick Cheney, victory is just around the corner.
Except that it isn't. Petraeus, and to a greater extent, Crocker admitted that the problems lie on the political side. No, not our political side -- the Iraqis'. Ultimately, this is the same problem that I've mentioned before. "Victory", or at least "success", as originally envisioned by Bush, depended on the actions of the Iraqis. This is an unfair burden to place on our troops and our government, as we have no control over the Iraqis.
George Will wrote a very good column that summarized my views so well. Read it. It's short and worth it. As he astutely points out, by the original metric, the surge has failed because the ultimate consequence was supposed to be some sort of grand political reconciliation.
This is not to say that the military has not reduced violence, although the GAO appears to disagree with the military's reports on this issue. The gains in the Anbar province, it should be noted, however, are due to Petraeus's far more intelligent reading of the situation than his predecessors rather than due to the surge. In fact, the surge's goal was to reduce violence in Baghdad and its environs, which it has (admittedly unevenly). The success in Anbar was unrelated to the troop increase and related to Petraeus (and others) convincing the Iraqi Sunnis and insurgents to turn against the non-Iraqis (i.e. terrorists & al-Qaeda in Iraq). However, I seriously doubt that the Sunnis suddenly feel warm, brotherly love toward the Iraqi Shiites, particularly when the Shiites have done such a good job cleansing Baghdad neighborhoods.
To sum up my views on all that has been reported, I have no doubts about Petraeus's integrity. Moreover, I think he was probably the man for the job back in 2003. The problem is that it's 2007 and a different ballgame. In reality, it may have always been a different ballgame and the chance for a unified, democratic Iraq may have always been nil, regardless of who was in charge of our troops. The president appears to have subtly shifted to a stance that accepts a looser confederation in Iraq. Unfortunately, however, the president's plan appears to be to dump the whole thing into the next president's lap, leaving no good options for the next one (whether he/she is a Democrat or Republican).
So, we've now made it to September -- that month that loomed in the back of our heads that was supposed to tell us everything. That month that President Bush promised would provide us with the much needed info on the Iraq "surge" (if a roughly 25% increase in troops can be considered a "surge", especially when original military estimates for occupying the country were closer to a 200-300% larger force than we had pre-surge). That month that Bush asked the country to be patient for. Well, it, and the Petraeus Report, arrived. And, we were told to be patient -- again. To paraphrase Dick Cheney, victory is just around the corner.
Except that it isn't. Petraeus, and to a greater extent, Crocker admitted that the problems lie on the political side. No, not our political side -- the Iraqis'. Ultimately, this is the same problem that I've mentioned before. "Victory", or at least "success", as originally envisioned by Bush, depended on the actions of the Iraqis. This is an unfair burden to place on our troops and our government, as we have no control over the Iraqis.
George Will wrote a very good column that summarized my views so well. Read it. It's short and worth it. As he astutely points out, by the original metric, the surge has failed because the ultimate consequence was supposed to be some sort of grand political reconciliation.
This is not to say that the military has not reduced violence, although the GAO appears to disagree with the military's reports on this issue. The gains in the Anbar province, it should be noted, however, are due to Petraeus's far more intelligent reading of the situation than his predecessors rather than due to the surge. In fact, the surge's goal was to reduce violence in Baghdad and its environs, which it has (admittedly unevenly). The success in Anbar was unrelated to the troop increase and related to Petraeus (and others) convincing the Iraqi Sunnis and insurgents to turn against the non-Iraqis (i.e. terrorists & al-Qaeda in Iraq). However, I seriously doubt that the Sunnis suddenly feel warm, brotherly love toward the Iraqi Shiites, particularly when the Shiites have done such a good job cleansing Baghdad neighborhoods.
To sum up my views on all that has been reported, I have no doubts about Petraeus's integrity. Moreover, I think he was probably the man for the job back in 2003. The problem is that it's 2007 and a different ballgame. In reality, it may have always been a different ballgame and the chance for a unified, democratic Iraq may have always been nil, regardless of who was in charge of our troops. The president appears to have subtly shifted to a stance that accepts a looser confederation in Iraq. Unfortunately, however, the president's plan appears to be to dump the whole thing into the next president's lap, leaving no good options for the next one (whether he/she is a Democrat or Republican).
Saturday, September 08, 2007
I know I've been away
But I've been busy -- my wife had a baby. Needless to say, I haven't had much time on my hands.
However, with the latest Republican debate (this one in New Hampshire) behind us, I read a devastating critique of the Republican candidates' plans (well, "plans" is a rather loose description) for the Iraq War. Joe Klein, in his blog, pointed out that none of the candidates appear to be on planet Earth with the rest of us. He doesn't think much of most of the Democrats' plans, although I know, from previous columns of his, that he thinks Hillary gives a reasonable answer to the Iraq question, in large part due to her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Nonetheless, he thinks the Republicans are even more detached from reality. Interesting column by him. Read it.
But I've been busy -- my wife had a baby. Needless to say, I haven't had much time on my hands.
However, with the latest Republican debate (this one in New Hampshire) behind us, I read a devastating critique of the Republican candidates' plans (well, "plans" is a rather loose description) for the Iraq War. Joe Klein, in his blog, pointed out that none of the candidates appear to be on planet Earth with the rest of us. He doesn't think much of most of the Democrats' plans, although I know, from previous columns of his, that he thinks Hillary gives a reasonable answer to the Iraq question, in large part due to her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Nonetheless, he thinks the Republicans are even more detached from reality. Interesting column by him. Read it.
Monday, May 21, 2007
More Rehab
Apparently, Tom Geoghegan, Floyd Landis' former manager, has decided to enter rehab after threatening Greg LeMond with revealing that LeMond had been sexually abused as a child. He joins a growing list on my blog, including Mark Foley and Gavin Newsom, who enter rehab as soon as their indiscretions make it into the news. Absurd, amusing, and pathetic, all rolled into one.
Apparently, Tom Geoghegan, Floyd Landis' former manager, has decided to enter rehab after threatening Greg LeMond with revealing that LeMond had been sexually abused as a child. He joins a growing list on my blog, including Mark Foley and Gavin Newsom, who enter rehab as soon as their indiscretions make it into the news. Absurd, amusing, and pathetic, all rolled into one.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Religious Discrimination on Campus? Or in Newspapers?
In a provocative article, the question of whether evangelicals face discrimination on university campuses is raised. The article begins with the story of a junior majoring in social work at Missouri State University who, during a socail work class, objected to an assignment that included writing a letter in support of something that violated her religious beliefs. After she refused to sign the letter, she had to go before a judicial panel at the school on charges of discrimination.
Or so the article would lead you to believe. The article states all of this as if it were facts. In reality, that summary of what happened to her is just her perspective of what happened, based on her lawsuit. However, the article does not say that. Rather than throwing in the usual phrases, such as "as her lawsuit alleged" or "as she claimed" after each statement, the article states these things as if they were facts stipulated by both sides. In the last three paragraphs of the relatively decent length article, the article suddenly suggests that there is another side to the student's story -- the professor's side. Who knew?!? According to the professor, he is a former pastor from a Pentecostal church and hardly anti-religious. Moreover, he claims never forced anyone to sign the letter.
Now, whether the professor or the student is correct in their accounts is beside the point. The problem is that the article does little-to-no justice for the professor's point of view. Not only does the article wait until the end to discuss the professor's side of things, it opens with the student's story in such a way that it appears that the student's story is FACT -- disagreed upon by no one. This is rather ironic as the much of the article focuses on people pushing for respect for divergent opinions and beliefs.
Clearly, if I were as absurd as paranoid right-wingers, I would loudly decry the obviously pro-evangelical, anti-university bias that this newspaper (the Washington Post) has. Unfortunately, I'm much more understanding than those paranoid wackos. I just think it's bad reporting.
In a provocative article, the question of whether evangelicals face discrimination on university campuses is raised. The article begins with the story of a junior majoring in social work at Missouri State University who, during a socail work class, objected to an assignment that included writing a letter in support of something that violated her religious beliefs. After she refused to sign the letter, she had to go before a judicial panel at the school on charges of discrimination.
Or so the article would lead you to believe. The article states all of this as if it were facts. In reality, that summary of what happened to her is just her perspective of what happened, based on her lawsuit. However, the article does not say that. Rather than throwing in the usual phrases, such as "as her lawsuit alleged" or "as she claimed" after each statement, the article states these things as if they were facts stipulated by both sides. In the last three paragraphs of the relatively decent length article, the article suddenly suggests that there is another side to the student's story -- the professor's side. Who knew?!? According to the professor, he is a former pastor from a Pentecostal church and hardly anti-religious. Moreover, he claims never forced anyone to sign the letter.
Now, whether the professor or the student is correct in their accounts is beside the point. The problem is that the article does little-to-no justice for the professor's point of view. Not only does the article wait until the end to discuss the professor's side of things, it opens with the student's story in such a way that it appears that the student's story is FACT -- disagreed upon by no one. This is rather ironic as the much of the article focuses on people pushing for respect for divergent opinions and beliefs.
Clearly, if I were as absurd as paranoid right-wingers, I would loudly decry the obviously pro-evangelical, anti-university bias that this newspaper (the Washington Post) has. Unfortunately, I'm much more understanding than those paranoid wackos. I just think it's bad reporting.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
The Truth and Questions about the Equal Rights for Women
There has been a recent push for a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights for women. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) nearly passed enough legislatures a few decades ago to become part of the Constitution but just missed. Now, backers are pushing the Women's Equality Amendment (perhaps WEA is more persuasive than ERA?).
Now, I want to be clear about my position on this: I have no opposition to the concept of a Constitutional amendment on this issue. I'm certainly no Phyllis Schlafly and don't really buy into her belief that a bizarre set of unintended consequences (e.g. unisex bathrooms) would occur due to the amendment, though I acknowledge that at least some small ones could occur. The American court system has never held that any right is truly universal and absolute, and so I don't worry about the courts engaging in absurd interpretation of such an amendment.
A recent op-ed piece by Martha Burk and Eleanor Smeal attempts to make the argument for the amendment, but I was irritated by their entire article and was left unpersuaded. Specifically, they argue that, although women's rights are, for the most part, guaranteed through federal and state statutes, we still need a Constitutional amendment. In fact, the sub-headline to their op-ed piece reads, "The Gender Gap Runs Deep in American Law", suggesting that the "gender gap" is enshrined in our laws. So, they say, "Why is the amendment needed?" They then list the reasons and here are they are, with my comments in italics:
Their thinking is rooted in the same philosophy as that of Communists. Specifically, these women believe in the equality of "sameness" rather than the equality of opportunity. Communism, in theory, fought for the idea that all workers were the same and should be given the same of everything. American values, however, have traditionally held that everyone should be given equal opportunity, though each person may end up achieving different amounts. This amendment would clearly fall into the latter category as it is simply guaranteeing the same opportunities already afforded men. Therefore, it is unclear how such an amendment could possibly create these women's utopia of sameness for all.
Moreover, the writers argue that, although we already have statutes in place to prevent discrimination, these could easily be overturned (yeah, I'd like to see THAT happen!) and, therefore, such rights must be enshrined in the Constitution. Of course, if women are already protected by these statutes, how could their list of complaints possibly be true? Or, better yet, how could an amendment, which just enshrines the foundation of these statutes into the Constitution, possibly accomplish what these statutes have NOT accomplished? Ah, if only these writers understood that enshrining rights into the Constitution does not suddenly make everyone EXACTLY the same.
There has been a recent push for a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights for women. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) nearly passed enough legislatures a few decades ago to become part of the Constitution but just missed. Now, backers are pushing the Women's Equality Amendment (perhaps WEA is more persuasive than ERA?).
Now, I want to be clear about my position on this: I have no opposition to the concept of a Constitutional amendment on this issue. I'm certainly no Phyllis Schlafly and don't really buy into her belief that a bizarre set of unintended consequences (e.g. unisex bathrooms) would occur due to the amendment, though I acknowledge that at least some small ones could occur. The American court system has never held that any right is truly universal and absolute, and so I don't worry about the courts engaging in absurd interpretation of such an amendment.
A recent op-ed piece by Martha Burk and Eleanor Smeal attempts to make the argument for the amendment, but I was irritated by their entire article and was left unpersuaded. Specifically, they argue that, although women's rights are, for the most part, guaranteed through federal and state statutes, we still need a Constitutional amendment. In fact, the sub-headline to their op-ed piece reads, "The Gender Gap Runs Deep in American Law", suggesting that the "gender gap" is enshrined in our laws. So, they say, "Why is the amendment needed?" They then list the reasons and here are they are, with my comments in italics:
- Twenty-three countries -- including Sri Lanka and Moldova -- have smaller gender gaps in education, politics and health than the United States, according to the World Economic Forum. This statement, while perhaps true, is rather vague. What is the "gap" in education? We have more women going to college than men and yet we have a gap that's negative for women? In terms of health, don't women live longer and isn't lifespan the ultimate measure of one's health (certainly, if one is dead, one cannot be "healthy"). Moreover, this complaint does not in any way implicate American laws as the cause of these "gaps", and I really don't see how an amendment could fix this.
- We are 68th in the world in women's participation in national legislatures. What does this mean? What would be perfect? Exactly 50% of the legislature being women? While that may sound nice, the reality is that, in a democracy, people can vote for whomever they want and so it seems to me that our women's participation rate in Congress is NOT the fault of our laws but rather the fault of our people. How could an amendment fix this?
- On average, a woman working full time and year-round still makes only 77 cents to a man's dollar. This is one of the most over-cited yet misunderstood statistics out there. This gap is almost entirely NOT due to discrimination (see here). More on this later, but again, how could an amendment fix this if discrimination isn't the problem?
- Women hold 98 percent of the low-paying "women's" jobs and fewer than 15 percent of the board seats at major corporations. The first part of the sentence is circular logic. If something is defined as a "women's" job, it stands to reason that most of the people holding such jobs are women. Why call something a "women's" job if men held 75% of such jobs? The second part is, again, unrelated to anything in American law. So, how could an amendment fix either of these "problems"?
- Because their private pensions -- if they have them at all -- are lower and because Social Security puts working women at a disadvantage and grants no credit for years spent at home caring for children or aging parents, three-quarters of the elderly in poverty are women. Here, they might -- MIGHT -- have a point, though I don't understand the intricacies of Social Security enough to say for sure. However, my understanding is that Social Security law is based on years worked -- not gender. While perhaps unfair to stay-at-home women, this could only be fixed by statute and not, in my opinion, by amendment.
- And in every state except Montana, women still pay higher rates than similarly situated men for almost all kinds of insurance. Huh? Really? They must not mean car insurance, which is just the reverse. Homeowner's insurance has nothing to do with your sex. Health insurance, at least through group plans, is exactly the same for each sex. Life insurance? Long-term disability or care insurance? Perhaps they mean individual health plans? It's not clear. I'm not sure whether an amendment could "fix" this.
Their thinking is rooted in the same philosophy as that of Communists. Specifically, these women believe in the equality of "sameness" rather than the equality of opportunity. Communism, in theory, fought for the idea that all workers were the same and should be given the same of everything. American values, however, have traditionally held that everyone should be given equal opportunity, though each person may end up achieving different amounts. This amendment would clearly fall into the latter category as it is simply guaranteeing the same opportunities already afforded men. Therefore, it is unclear how such an amendment could possibly create these women's utopia of sameness for all.
Moreover, the writers argue that, although we already have statutes in place to prevent discrimination, these could easily be overturned (yeah, I'd like to see THAT happen!) and, therefore, such rights must be enshrined in the Constitution. Of course, if women are already protected by these statutes, how could their list of complaints possibly be true? Or, better yet, how could an amendment, which just enshrines the foundation of these statutes into the Constitution, possibly accomplish what these statutes have NOT accomplished? Ah, if only these writers understood that enshrining rights into the Constitution does not suddenly make everyone EXACTLY the same.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
A Column by Colbert King
I just read a fascinating and enlightening column by Colbert King. Actually, the main purpose of the column was not enlightening because I already knew about the major issue. The main purpose was to drive home a point about Hillary Clinton's accepting $800,000 in money through a fundraiser held by Timbaland, a rap/hip-hop producer. Clinton decried Don Imus's remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team but has no problem accepting money raised by a hip-hop producer who has no problem using the same and even worse words as those used by Imus. I couldn't agree more with King about the hypocrisy of this move. He also should have mentioned that Bararck Obama has met with Ludacris, another purveyor of offensive rap lyrics (though I don't think Obama has raised money through his association with Ludacris).
What IS both fascinating and enlightening is the list of excerpts of responses that King got following last week's column about Don Imus. To read such insulting and racist messages is to know that the worst kind of racism still exists in this country. And, no, such racists are not ignorant and living in some backwater area, at least based on the Post's readership. They are, most likely, at least somewhat educated and, more important, well informed about the world. They are well read and do not get by on just reading racist rags. They try to stay well informed enought that they even read Op-Ed pieces by Colbert King -- they're not just looking for the sports and comics. In other words, they're anything but "ignorant". It's just disturbing on so many levels to know that such people still exist and are willing to spew out their vitriole.
I just read a fascinating and enlightening column by Colbert King. Actually, the main purpose of the column was not enlightening because I already knew about the major issue. The main purpose was to drive home a point about Hillary Clinton's accepting $800,000 in money through a fundraiser held by Timbaland, a rap/hip-hop producer. Clinton decried Don Imus's remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team but has no problem accepting money raised by a hip-hop producer who has no problem using the same and even worse words as those used by Imus. I couldn't agree more with King about the hypocrisy of this move. He also should have mentioned that Bararck Obama has met with Ludacris, another purveyor of offensive rap lyrics (though I don't think Obama has raised money through his association with Ludacris).
What IS both fascinating and enlightening is the list of excerpts of responses that King got following last week's column about Don Imus. To read such insulting and racist messages is to know that the worst kind of racism still exists in this country. And, no, such racists are not ignorant and living in some backwater area, at least based on the Post's readership. They are, most likely, at least somewhat educated and, more important, well informed about the world. They are well read and do not get by on just reading racist rags. They try to stay well informed enought that they even read Op-Ed pieces by Colbert King -- they're not just looking for the sports and comics. In other words, they're anything but "ignorant". It's just disturbing on so many levels to know that such people still exist and are willing to spew out their vitriole.
Friday, April 20, 2007
The Forgetful Administration
What has become clear from the hearings with Attorney-General Gonzales is that the man is an amnesiac. During the hearing, someone in the audience was keeping score on a little sign for the number of times Gonzales said, "I don't recall". Overall, it added up to 70+ times (according to NBC Nightly News).
And of course, the particularly strange thing about his lack of memory is that his amnesia has not been for small, trivial things such as the exact words someone used during a conversation. Rather, he initially claimed he wasn't involved in the firings. Now that his subordinates have even contradicted that, as well as emails, he admits he was involved. Nonetheless, at his hearing, he still couldn't remember much about what he had done in the past few months. And it's not as if firing 8 U.S. Attorneys were some minor trivial action. It was quite important and, in fact, 7 of those firings had been stewing for a year. The eighth (Julio Iglesias of New Mexico) was added after Iglesias refused to bring indictments against Democrats in New Mexico despite Sen. Pete Domenici's and Rep. Heather Wilson's phone calls to him. (Domenici then called the DOJ and, two weeks later, Iglesias's name was added to the list).
Amnesia appears to be a serious problem for this administration. Gonzales is certainly not the first to have trouble remembering important facts. Perhaps they should check the water in D.C. Of course, it's also possible that Gonzales is lying, but we know that a good guy like George Bush would never put up with the nation's top cop lying in such serious ways. And, as Bush is, in fact, putting up with Gonzales, we must reasonably conclude that Gonzales is an amnesiac.
Therefore, we have to ask: Would you want your Attorney-General to be an amnesiac? It seems to me that, if I were president, I'd like the nation's top cop to have some memories. I think that such things as memories are tremendously useful when doing one's job. So, thus, if Bush actually believed in the DOJ doing a good job, he would fire Gonzales right now simply for having no memory. But what's the chance that Bush would fire an incompetent guy? It only took 6 years to realize that Rumsfeld wasn't any good. Gonzales has only been Attorney-General for a little over 2 years.
What has become clear from the hearings with Attorney-General Gonzales is that the man is an amnesiac. During the hearing, someone in the audience was keeping score on a little sign for the number of times Gonzales said, "I don't recall". Overall, it added up to 70+ times (according to NBC Nightly News).
And of course, the particularly strange thing about his lack of memory is that his amnesia has not been for small, trivial things such as the exact words someone used during a conversation. Rather, he initially claimed he wasn't involved in the firings. Now that his subordinates have even contradicted that, as well as emails, he admits he was involved. Nonetheless, at his hearing, he still couldn't remember much about what he had done in the past few months. And it's not as if firing 8 U.S. Attorneys were some minor trivial action. It was quite important and, in fact, 7 of those firings had been stewing for a year. The eighth (Julio Iglesias of New Mexico) was added after Iglesias refused to bring indictments against Democrats in New Mexico despite Sen. Pete Domenici's and Rep. Heather Wilson's phone calls to him. (Domenici then called the DOJ and, two weeks later, Iglesias's name was added to the list).
Amnesia appears to be a serious problem for this administration. Gonzales is certainly not the first to have trouble remembering important facts. Perhaps they should check the water in D.C. Of course, it's also possible that Gonzales is lying, but we know that a good guy like George Bush would never put up with the nation's top cop lying in such serious ways. And, as Bush is, in fact, putting up with Gonzales, we must reasonably conclude that Gonzales is an amnesiac.
Therefore, we have to ask: Would you want your Attorney-General to be an amnesiac? It seems to me that, if I were president, I'd like the nation's top cop to have some memories. I think that such things as memories are tremendously useful when doing one's job. So, thus, if Bush actually believed in the DOJ doing a good job, he would fire Gonzales right now simply for having no memory. But what's the chance that Bush would fire an incompetent guy? It only took 6 years to realize that Rumsfeld wasn't any good. Gonzales has only been Attorney-General for a little over 2 years.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Sued If You Do, Sued If You Don't
In the wake of the VA Tech shootings, people are questioning whether the university did the right thing in responding to the various complaints about the shooter's behavior in the preceding years at the college. Apparently, he engaged in inappropriate contact with two girls, wrote disturbing plays, and was generally regarded as a problematic guy in one of his English classes. However, if you look at the details of these complaints, it becomes clear that none of them met a particular threshold that warranted stronger action. At one point, he became suicidal and, with the aid of a roommate and police, voluntarily went to a mental institution but he denied having suicidal thoughts and the doctor and judge released him.
The issue of what colleges should do with such students is far more complicated than it would seem. Following the shootings, people are asking why the college didn't do more -- e.g. kick him out of school. However, as this article makes clear, colleges have absolutely no guidance as to their role in dealing with students who have mental health issues. The article cites the case of GW University which was sued because it asked a student who had become severely depressed to leave. On the other hand, MIT was sued when a student there committed suicide.
Moreover, the colleges' hands are tied by a variety of laws, including those dealing with privacy and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In fact, just this spring, Virginia's legislature passed a law preventing public colleges from expelling suicidal students. Schools cannot summarily kick students out -- the students must have their "due process". The current state of affairs screams out for better guidance from the government as to what schools can and should do.
However, on a bigger scale, what this whole situation REALLY screams for is a society that doesn't constantly look to place blame on greater authorities for individuals' actions -- and better yet, courts that do not tolerate absurd lawsuits that hold universities responsible for individuals' suicides (e.g. MIT's case). Once again, as with the MySpace lawsuit that I blogged about earlier, if MIT is responsible for not preventing someone's suicide (what should they do? Put video cameras on every student 24/7?), then aren't the parents even MORE responsible? Shouldn't the parents be even MORE knowledgeable about their kids than the colleges? So, doesn't it seem a little absurd that the parents get to sue MIT for this?
The problem with our society's attitude toward colleges, and even, to some degree, pre-college schools, is that we send mixed signals. We don't want schools to act in loco parentis -- except when we do -- and we only know when we want them to AFTER the fact. Thus, GWU's actions were wrong because they weren't treating the student like an adult, whereas MIT's actions were wrong because they WERE treating the student like an adult.
Personally, I would prefer that schools NOT act in loco parentis and that we acknowledge that students are, in fact, adults and, therefore, are responsible for their own actions. But, regardless of which way we go, it's wrong for society not to choose. I suppose now all we have to do is wait and see how long it takes before someone sues VA Tech for not "doing something" about the shooter, as if all bad or criminal actions were preventable.
In the wake of the VA Tech shootings, people are questioning whether the university did the right thing in responding to the various complaints about the shooter's behavior in the preceding years at the college. Apparently, he engaged in inappropriate contact with two girls, wrote disturbing plays, and was generally regarded as a problematic guy in one of his English classes. However, if you look at the details of these complaints, it becomes clear that none of them met a particular threshold that warranted stronger action. At one point, he became suicidal and, with the aid of a roommate and police, voluntarily went to a mental institution but he denied having suicidal thoughts and the doctor and judge released him.
The issue of what colleges should do with such students is far more complicated than it would seem. Following the shootings, people are asking why the college didn't do more -- e.g. kick him out of school. However, as this article makes clear, colleges have absolutely no guidance as to their role in dealing with students who have mental health issues. The article cites the case of GW University which was sued because it asked a student who had become severely depressed to leave. On the other hand, MIT was sued when a student there committed suicide.
Moreover, the colleges' hands are tied by a variety of laws, including those dealing with privacy and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In fact, just this spring, Virginia's legislature passed a law preventing public colleges from expelling suicidal students. Schools cannot summarily kick students out -- the students must have their "due process". The current state of affairs screams out for better guidance from the government as to what schools can and should do.
However, on a bigger scale, what this whole situation REALLY screams for is a society that doesn't constantly look to place blame on greater authorities for individuals' actions -- and better yet, courts that do not tolerate absurd lawsuits that hold universities responsible for individuals' suicides (e.g. MIT's case). Once again, as with the MySpace lawsuit that I blogged about earlier, if MIT is responsible for not preventing someone's suicide (what should they do? Put video cameras on every student 24/7?), then aren't the parents even MORE responsible? Shouldn't the parents be even MORE knowledgeable about their kids than the colleges? So, doesn't it seem a little absurd that the parents get to sue MIT for this?
The problem with our society's attitude toward colleges, and even, to some degree, pre-college schools, is that we send mixed signals. We don't want schools to act in loco parentis -- except when we do -- and we only know when we want them to AFTER the fact. Thus, GWU's actions were wrong because they weren't treating the student like an adult, whereas MIT's actions were wrong because they WERE treating the student like an adult.
Personally, I would prefer that schools NOT act in loco parentis and that we acknowledge that students are, in fact, adults and, therefore, are responsible for their own actions. But, regardless of which way we go, it's wrong for society not to choose. I suppose now all we have to do is wait and see how long it takes before someone sues VA Tech for not "doing something" about the shooter, as if all bad or criminal actions were preventable.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Freedom of Speech and What It Really Means
Don Imus, radio "shock jock", has recently gotten in trouble for his racist remarks regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team. Although this is not his first offensive set of statements made (see here), these remarks have certainly garnered him the most negative attention. Moreover, they have led to some punishments by his employers as well as forced him to recant, apologize, and do the usual mea culpa walk.
What I have found particularly interesting has been the ensuing discussion about "freedom of speech". I find this rather odd because, if any of the idiots talking about freedom of speech actually knew what they were talking about, they wouldn't have raised it in the first place. The 1st Amendment reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech". As Congress has yet to weigh in on Imus or try to pass a law regarding his kind of speech, I see no relationship between the freedom of speech discussions and Imus's comments.
I have read several columns in which the writer starts off by saying that they believe in free speech. Then, depending on the writer's eventual conclusion, they argue that Imus is free to say whatever he wants and should (not) be fired. That both sides of the debate cite free speech and support free speech should make it clear that the issue of the freedom of speech has nothing to do with this debate as to whether he should be fired.
Case in point: A column by Michael Meyers appearing in the Washington Post. In this column, Meyers argues that those who want Imus fired or want the advertisers to pull their support are wrong and are violating our "free speech culture". I'm not going to argue as to whether Imus should be fired, but I take strong issue with the idea that Imus should not fired because we have freedom of speech in this country. This freedom is merely freedom from the government's ability to restrict my (or your) speech. The 1st Amendment does not, however, in any way, demand that a business permit any and all speech (when its business is, of course, speech). Or, for that matter, that a company could not pull its advertisements for a show that it finds offensive. Or, for that matter, that people can't call for someone else to be fired or for advertisers to pull their support.
Meyers calls those he disagrees with censorious pressure groups. However, the groups cannot be censorious as they do not actually control the airwaves. If any of these groups call for FCC action (as Meyers asserts Al Sharpton is doing), then I would disagree with that course of action. However, I have yet to read anyone's opinions calling for that.
In fact, what makes freedom of speech work in this country so well (and much better than countries like Britain and France, where there are restrictions on speech and yet where they have serious racism problems that racial issues look simple and easy in comparison) is that, when we hear speech we don't like, we can work to end such speech. I don't mean that in some 1984 manner. Rather, I mean that we can use the powers of the marketplace and mass opinion to force change.
The logic (or illogic) of Meyers's argument is that, if someone is not allowed to broadcast their messages over the radio, that person's "freedom of speech" has been violated and their thoughts have been censored. I assume, therefore, that this means that my freedom of speech has been violated, as I do not have a radio show. It seems that Meyers believes not only are we all allowed to have our soapbox for us to proclaim our ideas, but that we all are entitled to a business providing that soapbox for us. This is absolutely absurd, and I'm getting really tired of people's defense of others' statements being centered on free speech. Freedom of speech only works as a defense when the government is trying to restrict it. The people are free to work their own power through whatever (legal) means excluding the government they want.
Don Imus, radio "shock jock", has recently gotten in trouble for his racist remarks regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team. Although this is not his first offensive set of statements made (see here), these remarks have certainly garnered him the most negative attention. Moreover, they have led to some punishments by his employers as well as forced him to recant, apologize, and do the usual mea culpa walk.
What I have found particularly interesting has been the ensuing discussion about "freedom of speech". I find this rather odd because, if any of the idiots talking about freedom of speech actually knew what they were talking about, they wouldn't have raised it in the first place. The 1st Amendment reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech". As Congress has yet to weigh in on Imus or try to pass a law regarding his kind of speech, I see no relationship between the freedom of speech discussions and Imus's comments.
I have read several columns in which the writer starts off by saying that they believe in free speech. Then, depending on the writer's eventual conclusion, they argue that Imus is free to say whatever he wants and should (not) be fired. That both sides of the debate cite free speech and support free speech should make it clear that the issue of the freedom of speech has nothing to do with this debate as to whether he should be fired.
Case in point: A column by Michael Meyers appearing in the Washington Post. In this column, Meyers argues that those who want Imus fired or want the advertisers to pull their support are wrong and are violating our "free speech culture". I'm not going to argue as to whether Imus should be fired, but I take strong issue with the idea that Imus should not fired because we have freedom of speech in this country. This freedom is merely freedom from the government's ability to restrict my (or your) speech. The 1st Amendment does not, however, in any way, demand that a business permit any and all speech (when its business is, of course, speech). Or, for that matter, that a company could not pull its advertisements for a show that it finds offensive. Or, for that matter, that people can't call for someone else to be fired or for advertisers to pull their support.
Meyers calls those he disagrees with censorious pressure groups. However, the groups cannot be censorious as they do not actually control the airwaves. If any of these groups call for FCC action (as Meyers asserts Al Sharpton is doing), then I would disagree with that course of action. However, I have yet to read anyone's opinions calling for that.
In fact, what makes freedom of speech work in this country so well (and much better than countries like Britain and France, where there are restrictions on speech and yet where they have serious racism problems that racial issues look simple and easy in comparison) is that, when we hear speech we don't like, we can work to end such speech. I don't mean that in some 1984 manner. Rather, I mean that we can use the powers of the marketplace and mass opinion to force change.
The logic (or illogic) of Meyers's argument is that, if someone is not allowed to broadcast their messages over the radio, that person's "freedom of speech" has been violated and their thoughts have been censored. I assume, therefore, that this means that my freedom of speech has been violated, as I do not have a radio show. It seems that Meyers believes not only are we all allowed to have our soapbox for us to proclaim our ideas, but that we all are entitled to a business providing that soapbox for us. This is absolutely absurd, and I'm getting really tired of people's defense of others' statements being centered on free speech. Freedom of speech only works as a defense when the government is trying to restrict it. The people are free to work their own power through whatever (legal) means excluding the government they want.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Gingrich's Comments on Citizenship and English
In a recent speech, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich lambasted bilingual education and the use of non-English languages for printing of government documents, specifically election ballots. His criticisms, however, were WAY off the mark and were, in fact, based on an incorrect understanding of the laws of this country.
His first criticism suggested that bilingual education was teaching the "language of living in the ghetto." I assume that he must be referring to Spanish speakers and the use of Spanish and English in the education of children who only speak Spanish because I know English-speaking children who attend foreign-language immersion school and only learn English for the sake of English (i.e. not learning history in English but in the foreign language). And I don't think he's referring to French as the "language of living in the ghetto". So, already, there appears to be some sort of nationalistic and anti-Spanish streak in his talk.
However, the main problem with his criticism of bilingual education is that he suggests that immersion is better than bilingual education. The pro-bilingual people, however, argue that bilingual education does a better job because the students learn English but don't fall behind in their basic academics. One might think that this is a pedagogical issue worthy of study and informed debate, but Gingrich uses this as a way to blast bilingual eduation as a sort of anti-English force, when nothing could be further from the truth. All immigrants want to learn English and, in particular, want their kids to learn English because they know that English is the key to success (one point Gingrich did get right). To suggest that bilingual education is trying to devalue the place of English in our country is just plain wrong. Interestingly, the immigrants I know are divided on this issue, although, from my days in psychology, I remember reading that studies had suggested that bilingual education works better than immersion for non-English speaking children. So, I assume that it is on the basis of such studies that educators have concluded that bilingual education is the best way to mainstream such students. Of course, it should be noted that schools do not usually intend the students to remain in bilingual education forever -- just until their English is sufficient.
The nationalistic intent of Gingrich's speech is clear from the fact that he also blasts the printing of ballots in languages other than English. To support his argument, he states that citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English (I don't know whether he addressed the issue of immigrants have semi-fluency but not having enough fluency to get through some of the crazy ballot measures that are put on the voting ballots -- frankly, I have trouble sometimes deciphering the meaning, intent, and impact of the measures).
However, he could not be more wrong. I am a citizen and I have never had to take a test in order to achieve citizenship. In fact, I doubt he had to take a citizenship test either. Moreover, I have voted and never had to prove I could read English. How could this be? Oh wait, that's right: Newt doesn't know what he's talking about. There are many ways to become a citizen of this country, only of which (the naturalization process) requires a citizenship test. You could also be born on American soil (which includes American military bases and embassies in foreign countries, as well as the numerous territories and commonwealths, such as Puerto Rico, of the U.S.). Also, you could be born to an American parent. These do not require passing a citizenship test and, therefore, it is entirely possible that you have not learned English. Your American parent could have taken you overseas and never taught you English. Who knows?
In fact, the original reason for the federal laws requiring ballots in languages other than English stems from the Hispanics who lived in the Southwest and the Native Americans in a variety of states who did not speak English (or at least, not well). These were people who lived on land in the U.S. prior to the U.S. owning the land (or, I should say, their ancestors lived on the land). These people were often discriminated against and, generally speaking, were alienated from much of society. However, they were (and are) citizens of our country and, based on our laws, have the right to vote. To disenfranchise such people is simply wrong and against the kind of values we have developed over our country's history. Most important, many of these people, especially Native Americans, may still not have good English.
Gingrich also said that bilingualism poses long-term dangers for our country. Huh? What are you talking about, Newt? Have you talked to the Bush administration about the fact that so few people in this country know foreign languages fluently? Have you asked them how much it hurts our abilities to fight terrorists, fight international organized crime, or simply engage in the world? Have you talked to the county sheriffs in Tennessee who are battling Mexican methamphetamine smugglers but are facing serious hurdles simply because none of them know Spanish (I was just reading about this problem)? Clearly, the man doesn't know what he's talking about.
Again, some of his comments might be interesting were they given in an academic manner, but mostly, Gingrich's goal for his speech seemed to be to throw red meat to his audience and rouse their nationalistic tendencies while engaging in subtle anti-Hispanic racism.
In a recent speech, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich lambasted bilingual education and the use of non-English languages for printing of government documents, specifically election ballots. His criticisms, however, were WAY off the mark and were, in fact, based on an incorrect understanding of the laws of this country.
His first criticism suggested that bilingual education was teaching the "language of living in the ghetto." I assume that he must be referring to Spanish speakers and the use of Spanish and English in the education of children who only speak Spanish because I know English-speaking children who attend foreign-language immersion school and only learn English for the sake of English (i.e. not learning history in English but in the foreign language). And I don't think he's referring to French as the "language of living in the ghetto". So, already, there appears to be some sort of nationalistic and anti-Spanish streak in his talk.
However, the main problem with his criticism of bilingual education is that he suggests that immersion is better than bilingual education. The pro-bilingual people, however, argue that bilingual education does a better job because the students learn English but don't fall behind in their basic academics. One might think that this is a pedagogical issue worthy of study and informed debate, but Gingrich uses this as a way to blast bilingual eduation as a sort of anti-English force, when nothing could be further from the truth. All immigrants want to learn English and, in particular, want their kids to learn English because they know that English is the key to success (one point Gingrich did get right). To suggest that bilingual education is trying to devalue the place of English in our country is just plain wrong. Interestingly, the immigrants I know are divided on this issue, although, from my days in psychology, I remember reading that studies had suggested that bilingual education works better than immersion for non-English speaking children. So, I assume that it is on the basis of such studies that educators have concluded that bilingual education is the best way to mainstream such students. Of course, it should be noted that schools do not usually intend the students to remain in bilingual education forever -- just until their English is sufficient.
The nationalistic intent of Gingrich's speech is clear from the fact that he also blasts the printing of ballots in languages other than English. To support his argument, he states that citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English (I don't know whether he addressed the issue of immigrants have semi-fluency but not having enough fluency to get through some of the crazy ballot measures that are put on the voting ballots -- frankly, I have trouble sometimes deciphering the meaning, intent, and impact of the measures).
However, he could not be more wrong. I am a citizen and I have never had to take a test in order to achieve citizenship. In fact, I doubt he had to take a citizenship test either. Moreover, I have voted and never had to prove I could read English. How could this be? Oh wait, that's right: Newt doesn't know what he's talking about. There are many ways to become a citizen of this country, only of which (the naturalization process) requires a citizenship test. You could also be born on American soil (which includes American military bases and embassies in foreign countries, as well as the numerous territories and commonwealths, such as Puerto Rico, of the U.S.). Also, you could be born to an American parent. These do not require passing a citizenship test and, therefore, it is entirely possible that you have not learned English. Your American parent could have taken you overseas and never taught you English. Who knows?
In fact, the original reason for the federal laws requiring ballots in languages other than English stems from the Hispanics who lived in the Southwest and the Native Americans in a variety of states who did not speak English (or at least, not well). These were people who lived on land in the U.S. prior to the U.S. owning the land (or, I should say, their ancestors lived on the land). These people were often discriminated against and, generally speaking, were alienated from much of society. However, they were (and are) citizens of our country and, based on our laws, have the right to vote. To disenfranchise such people is simply wrong and against the kind of values we have developed over our country's history. Most important, many of these people, especially Native Americans, may still not have good English.
Gingrich also said that bilingualism poses long-term dangers for our country. Huh? What are you talking about, Newt? Have you talked to the Bush administration about the fact that so few people in this country know foreign languages fluently? Have you asked them how much it hurts our abilities to fight terrorists, fight international organized crime, or simply engage in the world? Have you talked to the county sheriffs in Tennessee who are battling Mexican methamphetamine smugglers but are facing serious hurdles simply because none of them know Spanish (I was just reading about this problem)? Clearly, the man doesn't know what he's talking about.
Again, some of his comments might be interesting were they given in an academic manner, but mostly, Gingrich's goal for his speech seemed to be to throw red meat to his audience and rouse their nationalistic tendencies while engaging in subtle anti-Hispanic racism.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Attorney General and American Idol
If you've been keeping up with the firing of the 8 U.S. attorneys, then you know it has recently centered on Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General of the U.S. (i.e. secretary of the Justice Department). I've found the whole affair to be rather disappointing due to the recently acknowledged increasing politicization of the U.S. attorneys' positions. A blog on the Washington Post has decided to lay out the case against Alberto Gonzales in a rather damning (though not criminal) fashion. It's a rather interesting, if not depressing, read.
On a completely separate note, American Idol was on tonight, for the first time with just the 12 finalists for this season. Everyone had to sing a song from Diana Ross's songbook. In terms of guests and guest songs, Diana Ross was a great choice. She's been around forever, singing songs the whole time, and her early work with the Supremes should be required musical knowledge for any modern pop musician. That said, why the heck did so many of the people choose such crappy songs from her past???!!!?? I mean, seriously, why in the world did they choose BORING songs? She's got so many great songs, and yet so many of them chose poor songs. In general, her songs from her time with the Supremes are better because they have more energy than her songs from her solo career, but she still had some good ones from when she was solo.
A better question might be: Why the heck did they give the guys all the good songs? Anyone who watches American Idol this season knows the guys suck. True to form tonight, they butchered Diana Ross's songs. The first singer of the night sang "Can't Hurry Love", a great song from the Supremes, and he turns it into one of the most boring renditions I've ever heard. Simon called him a backup singer, which is an insult to the backup singers who actually did a better job than him when they helped out with the song. Lakisha, who definitely has one of the best voices in the group, covered Diana covering Billie Holiday. While I think Lakisha is great, she should NEVER try covering a Billie Holiday song again. Her voice is more Whitney Houston (which she covered last week with "I Have Nothing" very well) than Billie.
I don't know remember his name, but one of the loser guys sang "Keep Me Hanging On", which should have been covered by the rocker chick. Why? Because the rocker chick would have sung it in a far better way. The guy completely changed the song into some sort of weird modern, slightly discotheque sounding version. It sucked. As the judges said, it's a classic and you should just sing it the way Diana sang it. Or, if you're going to change it, give it a rock edge. It's a bit of a hard-edged (for the Supremes) song and can be given a nice up-tempo but harder sound.
Anyway, I'm a Motown fan and I just couldn't stand listening to these loser guys butcher the great Supremes' classics. All the guys should be kicked off for screwing up all her songs, especially that guy Sanjaya who sounds like Michael Jackson with no energy (you know, high-pitched and boring).
If you've been keeping up with the firing of the 8 U.S. attorneys, then you know it has recently centered on Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General of the U.S. (i.e. secretary of the Justice Department). I've found the whole affair to be rather disappointing due to the recently acknowledged increasing politicization of the U.S. attorneys' positions. A blog on the Washington Post has decided to lay out the case against Alberto Gonzales in a rather damning (though not criminal) fashion. It's a rather interesting, if not depressing, read.
On a completely separate note, American Idol was on tonight, for the first time with just the 12 finalists for this season. Everyone had to sing a song from Diana Ross's songbook. In terms of guests and guest songs, Diana Ross was a great choice. She's been around forever, singing songs the whole time, and her early work with the Supremes should be required musical knowledge for any modern pop musician. That said, why the heck did so many of the people choose such crappy songs from her past???!!!?? I mean, seriously, why in the world did they choose BORING songs? She's got so many great songs, and yet so many of them chose poor songs. In general, her songs from her time with the Supremes are better because they have more energy than her songs from her solo career, but she still had some good ones from when she was solo.
A better question might be: Why the heck did they give the guys all the good songs? Anyone who watches American Idol this season knows the guys suck. True to form tonight, they butchered Diana Ross's songs. The first singer of the night sang "Can't Hurry Love", a great song from the Supremes, and he turns it into one of the most boring renditions I've ever heard. Simon called him a backup singer, which is an insult to the backup singers who actually did a better job than him when they helped out with the song. Lakisha, who definitely has one of the best voices in the group, covered Diana covering Billie Holiday. While I think Lakisha is great, she should NEVER try covering a Billie Holiday song again. Her voice is more Whitney Houston (which she covered last week with "I Have Nothing" very well) than Billie.
I don't know remember his name, but one of the loser guys sang "Keep Me Hanging On", which should have been covered by the rocker chick. Why? Because the rocker chick would have sung it in a far better way. The guy completely changed the song into some sort of weird modern, slightly discotheque sounding version. It sucked. As the judges said, it's a classic and you should just sing it the way Diana sang it. Or, if you're going to change it, give it a rock edge. It's a bit of a hard-edged (for the Supremes) song and can be given a nice up-tempo but harder sound.
Anyway, I'm a Motown fan and I just couldn't stand listening to these loser guys butcher the great Supremes' classics. All the guys should be kicked off for screwing up all her songs, especially that guy Sanjaya who sounds like Michael Jackson with no energy (you know, high-pitched and boring).
Who knew?
Apparently, the word "vagina" is so offensive that three girls were suspended for using it in an excerpt from the play "The Vagina Monologues." Apparently, they had agreed not to use the word "vagina" when doing their excerpt from the play. Does anyone see anything absurd going on here? They were reciting from a play CALLED "The VAGINA Monologues" and they weren't allowed to use the word "vagina". I'm laughing out loud as I write this.
Whether the girls deserve a suspension for breaking the agreement to use the word is a separate issue (it seems a bit harsh to me for saying a word that's just the proper anatomical term for a part of the body). The question is why the principal ever saw a problem with the word "vagina" in the first place. I mean, if the subject matter from the play is the problem, then he should have simply not permitted the excerpt in the first place. But to ban the use of the word "vagina" suggests that he's just a puritanical idiot. To help him, I'm going to write some words for him to practice saying in a mirror:
Penis, penis, penis, penis.
Vagina, vagina, vagina, vagina.
Clitoris, vulva, breast.
Apparently, the word "vagina" is so offensive that three girls were suspended for using it in an excerpt from the play "The Vagina Monologues." Apparently, they had agreed not to use the word "vagina" when doing their excerpt from the play. Does anyone see anything absurd going on here? They were reciting from a play CALLED "The VAGINA Monologues" and they weren't allowed to use the word "vagina". I'm laughing out loud as I write this.
Whether the girls deserve a suspension for breaking the agreement to use the word is a separate issue (it seems a bit harsh to me for saying a word that's just the proper anatomical term for a part of the body). The question is why the principal ever saw a problem with the word "vagina" in the first place. I mean, if the subject matter from the play is the problem, then he should have simply not permitted the excerpt in the first place. But to ban the use of the word "vagina" suggests that he's just a puritanical idiot. To help him, I'm going to write some words for him to practice saying in a mirror:
Penis, penis, penis, penis.
Vagina, vagina, vagina, vagina.
Clitoris, vulva, breast.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Latest from the FDA
The FDA unveiled new rules for fruit and vegetable processors (presumably in response to the great E. coli spinach outbreak).
Oh, wait, let me correct that: The FDA unveiled new voluntary rules. Which . . . makes . . . no . . . sense whatsoever. What, exactly, is a "voluntary rule"? Some sort of paradoxical oxymoron that we're supposed to ponder to distract us from the multiple failings of the Bush administration? I've noticed the Bush administration likes these kinds of "rules". Of course, who wouldn't like rules that you don't have to follow? Well, I guess those people who end up suffering due to people not following the "rules" might dislike these kinds of rules, but they're just whiners anyway.
The FDA unveiled new rules for fruit and vegetable processors (presumably in response to the great E. coli spinach outbreak).
Oh, wait, let me correct that: The FDA unveiled new voluntary rules. Which . . . makes . . . no . . . sense whatsoever. What, exactly, is a "voluntary rule"? Some sort of paradoxical oxymoron that we're supposed to ponder to distract us from the multiple failings of the Bush administration? I've noticed the Bush administration likes these kinds of "rules". Of course, who wouldn't like rules that you don't have to follow? Well, I guess those people who end up suffering due to people not following the "rules" might dislike these kinds of rules, but they're just whiners anyway.
Friday, March 09, 2007
The Second Amendment: D.C.'s Gun Law Struck Down
The city of Washington, D.C., has long had one of the nation's strictest (if not the strictest) gun laws in place. Specifically, unless someone in D.C. has a handgun that was registered prior to 1976, handguns are banned. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit struck down that provision, declaring that it violated the Second Amendment. The court said that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads,
On balance, I find that the amendment appears to read more closely to those who believe that an individual does not have the right to own a gun. This does not mean, of course, that a state (or any part of the government) could not permit individuals to own guns. Therefore, I've always found the arguments of the NRA and similar groups to be a little exaggerated, as most states do little-to-nothing to prevent any kind of gun ownership (heck, even the federal government has allowed its assault weapons ban to lapse). Moreover, the majority of people appear to be opposed to strict bans on guns (except for the assault weapons ban, which was allowed to lapse anyway).
However, the strangest part of this, I find, is that the groups are reversed on their interpretation of the amendment. Liberals want a strict interpretation -- the word "militia" is taken literally for their understanding. Conservatives, on the other hand, want a looser interpretation, in which the original intent of the amendment is clearly tossed aside. I mean that last part rather seriously because the original intent of the amendment is laid out rather succinctly by the framers in the opening clause of the amendment (i.e. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"). This does not mean conservatives are wrong; I would just like it if they admitted that they are not actually strict constructionists. Now, perhaps, someone could engage in a little semantic sleight of hand to try to carry the strict constructionist argument, but the problem with that is that any such rhetorical tricks are precisely the opposite of strict constructionism.
Having read enough George Will and Charles Krauthammer to know how much they despise the supposed invention of the "right to privacy", I would like them to write columns hammering on the individual right to own a gun as an invented right. Of course, the right to privacy is not an elucidated right. Rather, it is an inferred right and, in fact, certain parts of the Constitution (e.g. a ban on unreasonable searches) would make little sense if people did not have the right to privacy. Similarly, one could argue that it is not clear who would belong in the militia, and thus could own guns, and who would not, as we no longer have "militia" in the sense that the original founders did.
It would, therefore, be tremendously valuable and helpful if people stopped pretending that they interpret the Constitution according to some high and mighty principle and, similarly, stopped accusing courts of engaging in judicial activism (wouldn't today's ruling fall under that category?). Such "principled appeals" and absurd accusations are almost always based on the desired outcome, rather than any serious principles, of the person claiming such principles or leveling such accusations.
The city of Washington, D.C., has long had one of the nation's strictest (if not the strictest) gun laws in place. Specifically, unless someone in D.C. has a handgun that was registered prior to 1976, handguns are banned. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit struck down that provision, declaring that it violated the Second Amendment. The court said that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads,
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.This has always been a thorny issue for this country, as people have disagreed as to the exact meaning of the amendment. Some have held that, as the amendment refers to a "militia", this does not mean an individual necessarily has the right to a gun. Others, including the court in this opinion, have interpreted it to mean just the opposite.
On balance, I find that the amendment appears to read more closely to those who believe that an individual does not have the right to own a gun. This does not mean, of course, that a state (or any part of the government) could not permit individuals to own guns. Therefore, I've always found the arguments of the NRA and similar groups to be a little exaggerated, as most states do little-to-nothing to prevent any kind of gun ownership (heck, even the federal government has allowed its assault weapons ban to lapse). Moreover, the majority of people appear to be opposed to strict bans on guns (except for the assault weapons ban, which was allowed to lapse anyway).
However, the strangest part of this, I find, is that the groups are reversed on their interpretation of the amendment. Liberals want a strict interpretation -- the word "militia" is taken literally for their understanding. Conservatives, on the other hand, want a looser interpretation, in which the original intent of the amendment is clearly tossed aside. I mean that last part rather seriously because the original intent of the amendment is laid out rather succinctly by the framers in the opening clause of the amendment (i.e. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"). This does not mean conservatives are wrong; I would just like it if they admitted that they are not actually strict constructionists. Now, perhaps, someone could engage in a little semantic sleight of hand to try to carry the strict constructionist argument, but the problem with that is that any such rhetorical tricks are precisely the opposite of strict constructionism.
Having read enough George Will and Charles Krauthammer to know how much they despise the supposed invention of the "right to privacy", I would like them to write columns hammering on the individual right to own a gun as an invented right. Of course, the right to privacy is not an elucidated right. Rather, it is an inferred right and, in fact, certain parts of the Constitution (e.g. a ban on unreasonable searches) would make little sense if people did not have the right to privacy. Similarly, one could argue that it is not clear who would belong in the militia, and thus could own guns, and who would not, as we no longer have "militia" in the sense that the original founders did.
It would, therefore, be tremendously valuable and helpful if people stopped pretending that they interpret the Constitution according to some high and mighty principle and, similarly, stopped accusing courts of engaging in judicial activism (wouldn't today's ruling fall under that category?). Such "principled appeals" and absurd accusations are almost always based on the desired outcome, rather than any serious principles, of the person claiming such principles or leveling such accusations.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
You mean it was all lies?
Well, at least dubious claims at best. As we all may recall, back in 2002, the Bush administration said that North Korea was enriching uranium in violation of a 1994 agreement that the Clinton administration reach with North Korea. As a result, Bush ended the accord, North Korea built up some plutonium, and North Korea set off a nuclear test this past fall. This, of course, has led to a giant stalemate and fears of what North Korea will do as it is becoming a nuclear power.
It turns out, however, that perhaps none of this ever should have happened. The original evidence that Bush based his accusations on now appears to be somewhat dubious. In fact, the administration is backing away from those initial claims, as a new agreement with North Korea (and the possibility of inspections revealing the truth about the country's uranium enrichment) is in the near future.
Of course, it still remains possible that the original claims were right, but David Kay, the administration's man in Iraq who looked for WMD's following the initial phase of the Iraq War, appears to believe that the original claims were based on rather flimsy evidence. Assuming I've got this all straight, what I hear is that:
a) All the criticism of the Clinton administration was wrong. As I recall, everyone was saying that the Clinton administration was a bunch of fools for trusting North Korea. Of course, aren't we also a bunch of fools for trusting the Bush administration? Over and over?
b) North Korea probably would not have gone on its plutonium/nuclear weapons spree if the U.S. hadn't suddenly broken the accord and gone all bellicose on them.
c) Our current problem with North Korea is, in fact, rather self-induced.
Frankly, I don't trust anything from this administration simply because what they say appears to bear no relationship with the truth. If they said the sky was blue, I would assume that there was no more evidence for the blue color of the sky than for the purple with pink polka-dot color of the sky.
Bush had better hope that these inspections show their original claims were, luckily, right. Of course, that means the Bush administration takes the shotgun approach to accusations -- make enough of them against enough countries and, well, you'll turn out to be right at least once.
Well, at least dubious claims at best. As we all may recall, back in 2002, the Bush administration said that North Korea was enriching uranium in violation of a 1994 agreement that the Clinton administration reach with North Korea. As a result, Bush ended the accord, North Korea built up some plutonium, and North Korea set off a nuclear test this past fall. This, of course, has led to a giant stalemate and fears of what North Korea will do as it is becoming a nuclear power.
It turns out, however, that perhaps none of this ever should have happened. The original evidence that Bush based his accusations on now appears to be somewhat dubious. In fact, the administration is backing away from those initial claims, as a new agreement with North Korea (and the possibility of inspections revealing the truth about the country's uranium enrichment) is in the near future.
Of course, it still remains possible that the original claims were right, but David Kay, the administration's man in Iraq who looked for WMD's following the initial phase of the Iraq War, appears to believe that the original claims were based on rather flimsy evidence. Assuming I've got this all straight, what I hear is that:
a) All the criticism of the Clinton administration was wrong. As I recall, everyone was saying that the Clinton administration was a bunch of fools for trusting North Korea. Of course, aren't we also a bunch of fools for trusting the Bush administration? Over and over?
b) North Korea probably would not have gone on its plutonium/nuclear weapons spree if the U.S. hadn't suddenly broken the accord and gone all bellicose on them.
c) Our current problem with North Korea is, in fact, rather self-induced.
Frankly, I don't trust anything from this administration simply because what they say appears to bear no relationship with the truth. If they said the sky was blue, I would assume that there was no more evidence for the blue color of the sky than for the purple with pink polka-dot color of the sky.
Bush had better hope that these inspections show their original claims were, luckily, right. Of course, that means the Bush administration takes the shotgun approach to accusations -- make enough of them against enough countries and, well, you'll turn out to be right at least once.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Monday, February 05, 2007
LOL
I saw something that reminded me of good ol' Rep. Mark Foley, who went into rehab following the revelations of his predilections for male interns. Anyway, Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, has recently revealed that he had an affair with the wife of one of his closest aides. Shockingly, he has now entered rehab for his alcoholism. Man, these guys are so predictable.
I saw something that reminded me of good ol' Rep. Mark Foley, who went into rehab following the revelations of his predilections for male interns. Anyway, Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, has recently revealed that he had an affair with the wife of one of his closest aides. Shockingly, he has now entered rehab for his alcoholism. Man, these guys are so predictable.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Interesting
I found an interesting study where someone examined post-World War II wars. It was done due to the huge number of comparisons between the Iraq war and previous wars. The study looked at wars between the five permanent Security Council members at the UN and other countries. What was particularly interesting was that the author of the study broke down the wars based on the kind of goals that the militarily stronger country was trying to accomplish. Anyway, check it out.
I found an interesting study where someone examined post-World War II wars. It was done due to the huge number of comparisons between the Iraq war and previous wars. The study looked at wars between the five permanent Security Council members at the UN and other countries. What was particularly interesting was that the author of the study broke down the wars based on the kind of goals that the militarily stronger country was trying to accomplish. Anyway, check it out.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Follow up about blacks and Republicans
I just read a column by Colbert King. In it, he cites a Republican delegate in the Virginia House of Delegates as saying, "that instead of seeking a formal apology from the commonwealth for slavery, 'black citizens should get over it.'" Colbert also writes,
However, I will argue that I don't see why it's so hard for governments in this country to make this apology. It's not as if the federal or state governments have never apologized for anything else. This would certainly not be setting a precedent. I've heard arguments that an apology opens up a government to a lawsuit, but I think that is just an excuse (in fact, there are reasons that that is not even a reasonable worry). To take this a step further, why should governments not be liable for what happened? I'm not referring to slavery because those people are long gone. I'm referring to Jim Crow laws. Aren't reparations due to all black Americans who suffered under those laws?
Japanese Americans who were placed in internment camps during World War II were given reparations. Blacks suffered much more recently, and for a far longer period of time, than Japanese Americans. Moreover, the oppression of black Americans was clearly illegal and, in many states, such oppressive laws did not exist. So, what's the difference? Do we, as a country, feel OK with making reparations to Japanese Americans but not to black Americans? I cannot see any logical reason to deny reparations to Black Americans who were alive, say, prior to 1980. The only difference appears to be the depth of white America's racism -- people are less racist toward Asian Americans than to Black Americans.
As a final note, I want to point out that Virginia, despite Hargrove, has actually made progress in the idea of reparations for some Jim Crow stuff, specifically for paying for education for blacks that lived in counties that shut down their school systems rather than integrate, leaving such blacks with no education whatsoever. Unfortunately, these reparations are only for very specific, definable things, which denies the totality of the oppression suffered. So, to Hargrove, I ask: How are black Americans EVER supposed to get over any of this when such inequities, and such attitudes as yours, continue?
I just read a column by Colbert King. In it, he cites a Republican delegate in the Virginia House of Delegates as saying, "that instead of seeking a formal apology from the commonwealth for slavery, 'black citizens should get over it.'" Colbert also writes,
Hargrove was correct when he told the House of Delegates on Tuesday that "not a soul in this legislature" had anything to do with slavery. It was before their time. But Virginia's shameful history on race is not limited to slavery.King then points out that, at 80, Hargrove was certainly around for the Jim Crow actions of the state that continued through the 1970s. As King acknowledges later on, he's not even sure whether an apology is worth the trouble. But any reasonable person has to ask themselves why so many Republicans continue to be so offensive when it comes to blacks in this country. In order to win black votes, in order to be a "big-tent" party, it would seem that, at a minimum, Republicans should, at least, stop insulting blacks.
However, I will argue that I don't see why it's so hard for governments in this country to make this apology. It's not as if the federal or state governments have never apologized for anything else. This would certainly not be setting a precedent. I've heard arguments that an apology opens up a government to a lawsuit, but I think that is just an excuse (in fact, there are reasons that that is not even a reasonable worry). To take this a step further, why should governments not be liable for what happened? I'm not referring to slavery because those people are long gone. I'm referring to Jim Crow laws. Aren't reparations due to all black Americans who suffered under those laws?
Japanese Americans who were placed in internment camps during World War II were given reparations. Blacks suffered much more recently, and for a far longer period of time, than Japanese Americans. Moreover, the oppression of black Americans was clearly illegal and, in many states, such oppressive laws did not exist. So, what's the difference? Do we, as a country, feel OK with making reparations to Japanese Americans but not to black Americans? I cannot see any logical reason to deny reparations to Black Americans who were alive, say, prior to 1980. The only difference appears to be the depth of white America's racism -- people are less racist toward Asian Americans than to Black Americans.
As a final note, I want to point out that Virginia, despite Hargrove, has actually made progress in the idea of reparations for some Jim Crow stuff, specifically for paying for education for blacks that lived in counties that shut down their school systems rather than integrate, leaving such blacks with no education whatsoever. Unfortunately, these reparations are only for very specific, definable things, which denies the totality of the oppression suffered. So, to Hargrove, I ask: How are black Americans EVER supposed to get over any of this when such inequities, and such attitudes as yours, continue?
Friday, January 19, 2007
Frivolous Lawsuits
According to the news over the past day or two, MySpace, along with its new corporate owner News Corp., is being sued by four families because at least one underage girl in each family was (allegedly) sexually abused by an adult that the girls met via MySpace. According to a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, "In our view, MySpace waited entirely too long to attempt to institute meaningful security measures that effectively increase the safety of their underage users."
Now let's think about this for a second. MySpace is a networking site, providing a place for people to meet each other, usually friends to keep in touch with each other. Some underage girls apparently met some above-age men and were then sexually abused by these men -- outside the internet, obviously. According to the article, "The lawyers who filed the latest lawsuits said the plaintiffs include a 15-year-old girl from Texas who was lured to a meeting, drugged and assaulted in 2006 by an adult MySpace user, who is currently serving a 10-year sentence in Texas after pleading guilty to sexual assault." From reading this, I have to ask: Wouldn't the most appropriate person to be sued be the man who sexually assaulted the girl?
Instead, there seems to be this idea that MySpace has a secondary responsibility in this case (after the rapist) for the rape. Fine. Let's say that MySpace was negligent in protecting children across the country. But then, it seems to me that the parents are at least as responsible for being negligent in how they monitored their children's internet usage and in monitoring their children's comings and goings from the house. Certainly, they were negligent in "allowing" their children to be lured from their house and assaulted. Shouldn't the parents, who I thought had primary responsibility for the well being of their children, have done a better job paying attention to who their children were meeting online? Shouldn't the parents be sued as well? Of course, the parents would have to sue themselves, and that wouldn't work. The parents obviously don't see any reason to sue the main perpetrators of the crimes either, most likely because there is little to gain monetarily from such a lawsuit. Instead, the parents sniffed around and realized MySpace was a great, wealthy target.
These kinds of lawsuits, and the feigned outrage by the lawyers, families, and media at the behavior of companies like MySpace, sicken me. MySpace did nothing wrong and, in my opinion, is far less responsible for the terrible acts that occurred than the parents themselves or even of the girls themselves. Yes, that's right. I said it: The girls bear a secondary responsibility as well. It was negligent of their own persons and their own well being to engage in such risky behavior as meeting strangers off their internet. My statement does not, in any way, diminish the horrible nature of the crimes perpetrated against them or decrease the ultimate responsibility of the crimes that rest with the men who committed them. Nonetheless, we have to ask ourselves: Why are these girls putting themselves in such known risky situations? We should also ask: Why are the parents not doing a better job making sure that the girls avoid such risky situations? Frankly, if these families want to start talking about secondary responsibilities and who should be sued, MySpace falls well below second place in that contest.
According to the news over the past day or two, MySpace, along with its new corporate owner News Corp., is being sued by four families because at least one underage girl in each family was (allegedly) sexually abused by an adult that the girls met via MySpace. According to a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, "In our view, MySpace waited entirely too long to attempt to institute meaningful security measures that effectively increase the safety of their underage users."
Now let's think about this for a second. MySpace is a networking site, providing a place for people to meet each other, usually friends to keep in touch with each other. Some underage girls apparently met some above-age men and were then sexually abused by these men -- outside the internet, obviously. According to the article, "The lawyers who filed the latest lawsuits said the plaintiffs include a 15-year-old girl from Texas who was lured to a meeting, drugged and assaulted in 2006 by an adult MySpace user, who is currently serving a 10-year sentence in Texas after pleading guilty to sexual assault." From reading this, I have to ask: Wouldn't the most appropriate person to be sued be the man who sexually assaulted the girl?
Instead, there seems to be this idea that MySpace has a secondary responsibility in this case (after the rapist) for the rape. Fine. Let's say that MySpace was negligent in protecting children across the country. But then, it seems to me that the parents are at least as responsible for being negligent in how they monitored their children's internet usage and in monitoring their children's comings and goings from the house. Certainly, they were negligent in "allowing" their children to be lured from their house and assaulted. Shouldn't the parents, who I thought had primary responsibility for the well being of their children, have done a better job paying attention to who their children were meeting online? Shouldn't the parents be sued as well? Of course, the parents would have to sue themselves, and that wouldn't work. The parents obviously don't see any reason to sue the main perpetrators of the crimes either, most likely because there is little to gain monetarily from such a lawsuit. Instead, the parents sniffed around and realized MySpace was a great, wealthy target.
These kinds of lawsuits, and the feigned outrage by the lawyers, families, and media at the behavior of companies like MySpace, sicken me. MySpace did nothing wrong and, in my opinion, is far less responsible for the terrible acts that occurred than the parents themselves or even of the girls themselves. Yes, that's right. I said it: The girls bear a secondary responsibility as well. It was negligent of their own persons and their own well being to engage in such risky behavior as meeting strangers off their internet. My statement does not, in any way, diminish the horrible nature of the crimes perpetrated against them or decrease the ultimate responsibility of the crimes that rest with the men who committed them. Nonetheless, we have to ask ourselves: Why are these girls putting themselves in such known risky situations? We should also ask: Why are the parents not doing a better job making sure that the girls avoid such risky situations? Frankly, if these families want to start talking about secondary responsibilities and who should be sued, MySpace falls well below second place in that contest.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
I guess it's time to post again
I read a column by a fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical Progress that suggested to me that he was anything but interested in medical progress. In his column, Paul Howard rants about New York City's ban on trans fats before segueing (impossibly, in my opinion) to pointing out the importance of making poor urban areas more market friendly (i.e. amenable to large supermarkets). The latter point is an excellent one and couldn't be more on-target for alleviating food choice problems facing the urban poor. However, the former point that the ban on trans fats is a horrible thing is way off the mark. He argues,
Well, for starters, while fast-food places are major users of trans fats (his implication being that only poor people eat at fast food places), ALL people encounter them, regardless of where they eat, because trans fats are used in so many different ways in so many different places, including in the nicest, poshest restaurants in NYC. They were originally used because they were believed to be healthier than saturated fats yet were able to produce similar-tasting products when used in place of saturated fats.
However, the major problem with trans fats is that they are unnatural and, it turns out, the trans nature of those fats is incompatible with how human bodies process them. These fats increase LDLs while decreasing HDLs. They are like the anti-statins. Despite the abundance of scientific evidence indicating their danger, Howard also takes the cheap shot by saying that experts disagree about their danger. Note to any non-scientist out there: Regardless of the issue (e.g. gravity), you can find "scientists" who disagree with consensus opinion; such disagreement does not invalidate the basic truth.
Howard could have had his best criticism if he had made a stronger point that perhaps we don't want the government micromanaging such aspects of our lives. However, I have thought about trans fats and come to the conclusion that it is only logical that they be banned. They are an additive and, according to our laws and the FDA (if I'm remembering correctly from a past article that I can't find), all additives must be considered generally safe. Trans fats are, in fact, unnatural and are certainly additives and the consensus is that they are not safe. If someone were to invent trans fats and, before being allowed to be used in food, they were tested and found to have these dangerous health effects, I seriously doubt that anyone would even question for a moment the FDA's decision to ban them (or at least restrict their use). I think it's great that most foods in the store now must list the trans fats on their products, but, when you eat out at restaurants, it's impossible to know how much trans fat is in their food.
I read a column by a fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical Progress that suggested to me that he was anything but interested in medical progress. In his column, Paul Howard rants about New York City's ban on trans fats before segueing (impossibly, in my opinion) to pointing out the importance of making poor urban areas more market friendly (i.e. amenable to large supermarkets). The latter point is an excellent one and couldn't be more on-target for alleviating food choice problems facing the urban poor. However, the former point that the ban on trans fats is a horrible thing is way off the mark. He argues,
There are so many things wrong and so many illogical points in those two paragraphs that I don't know where to begin. However, the most important thing he gets wrong is the motivation behind NYC's ban. He seems to assume that this is supposed to make New Yorkers get thinner, yet the ban was put in place NOT for how trans fats make you gain weight but for how they affect your cardiovascular system. He goes on to criticize NYC for taking a patronizing stand in their efforts to make the poor eat healthier, as if this ban were targeted solely at the poor.Millions of Americans are trying to keep their New Year's resolution to slim down by improving what they eat and how they exercise. Unfortunately, New York's ill-conceived trans fat ban will do little to help; in fact, it will likely undermine those resolutions.
By singling out one substance, the city is sending a dangerous message that health is about eliminating "bad" foods rather than making better lifestyle choices. This is the policy equivalent of a fad diet -- it will grab the headlines for a short while without changing anyone's actual behavior.
Well, for starters, while fast-food places are major users of trans fats (his implication being that only poor people eat at fast food places), ALL people encounter them, regardless of where they eat, because trans fats are used in so many different ways in so many different places, including in the nicest, poshest restaurants in NYC. They were originally used because they were believed to be healthier than saturated fats yet were able to produce similar-tasting products when used in place of saturated fats.
However, the major problem with trans fats is that they are unnatural and, it turns out, the trans nature of those fats is incompatible with how human bodies process them. These fats increase LDLs while decreasing HDLs. They are like the anti-statins. Despite the abundance of scientific evidence indicating their danger, Howard also takes the cheap shot by saying that experts disagree about their danger. Note to any non-scientist out there: Regardless of the issue (e.g. gravity), you can find "scientists" who disagree with consensus opinion; such disagreement does not invalidate the basic truth.
Howard could have had his best criticism if he had made a stronger point that perhaps we don't want the government micromanaging such aspects of our lives. However, I have thought about trans fats and come to the conclusion that it is only logical that they be banned. They are an additive and, according to our laws and the FDA (if I'm remembering correctly from a past article that I can't find), all additives must be considered generally safe. Trans fats are, in fact, unnatural and are certainly additives and the consensus is that they are not safe. If someone were to invent trans fats and, before being allowed to be used in food, they were tested and found to have these dangerous health effects, I seriously doubt that anyone would even question for a moment the FDA's decision to ban them (or at least restrict their use). I think it's great that most foods in the store now must list the trans fats on their products, but, when you eat out at restaurants, it's impossible to know how much trans fat is in their food.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)