RIAA is going crazy

Apparently, the RIAA's website says

If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages.

Hm. Nope. Not illegal to make copies for personal use. That's pretty much been the backbone of all the related lawsuits so far, that it is fine to make copies for your own use, you just aren't supposed to share them with others or (more importantly) profit off them.

The RIAA honestly thinks that if you want to listen to a song on your CD player, your computer and your mp3 player, that you should pay for it three times.

And they wonder why people are generally pissed off at record companies.

Silence != Prayer

LAT covers a bitching session in Illinois where atheists are angry over a moment of silence in school because they think it breaches the separation of church and state.

To their defense, the moment is for "reflection and student prayer".

While normally I'd be all over making sure we keep prayer out of school, and making sure kids don't feel awkward and isolated for not praying, I really don't feel that this fits at all.

But its for reflection and prayer.

And it is silent.

Kids aren't about to be singled out for not praying along with their friends, or for sitting while everyone else is standing. Everyone just shuts up for a minute.

I'm sure that if they had instead called it a Moment of Reflection and talked up how the kids would have time to reflect on their day, or their studies, or mediate, or just relax and be less stressed, etc, then there would be no problem.

And there's no freakin difference anyway.

An atheist student who's part of the dispute says, "My one friend was really angry because he liked having that moment to think about his life. He's going through a tough time. His parents are getting divorced. His brother's not very nice to him."

... basically hurting her entire argument. So just let everyone sit quietly for a minute and everyone will chill and take a deep breath and it'll be nice.

Gary

My mechanic, Gary, died.

He worked at a place that him and his brother owned and it was down the street from the first house I lived in and close to my dad's second house. My dad's been taking his cars there at least as long as I've been alive. My dad just stopped by for gas and ended up talking to his brother about him for an hour.

He was always really nice and easy going. My sister and I had beat up old cars so we were there a lot. He'd let us just pick the cars up when we needed them and my dad would be back to pay him later. They were a do-able walk from the house, or sometimes they'd drive over and pick us up and then we'd drive them back when we needed to pick up a car.

I don't really think I'm doing him justice here yet. This sounds corny nostalgic but Gary was half of the best small but great business that makes you feel like family that I've known. My dad didn't even know he had cancer until three weeks ago, he'd just kept working. I feel really bad for his brother, too. I guess normally you'd go back to work to forget about stuff or try to carry on with your life or whatever but they shared the place.

I think my car that I totalled in 2004 is still behind the shop. Maybe part of why this is more upsetting than one would think is because it was my first car and he was my first mechanic. I was an adult and I could drive and he was the man who was going to help me along with that, my trusty friend who would take care of my baby.

I don't know exactly. It was always good to see him, even if I haven't had a real reason to for the past four years. Gary was really nice and I miss him.

We hope this does not undermine our credibility...

Wooooow.

FEMA staged a fake press conference.

Really!

Apparently, they called a press conference 15 minutes before it was going to happen, so no reporters were able to show (shocker!) and then they had FEMA employees ask questions to FEMA's deputy administrator who just said what a lovely job they were doing in CA, of course without saying "by the way, these aren't reporters".

Here's my favorite part:

I hope readers understand we're working very hard to establish
credibility and integrity, and I would hope this does not undermine it.

Excuse me but, HAHAHAHA. Yea, don't worry, I'm sure this will not undermine your credibility, don't worry. I'm sure no one will mind that you totally lied to them (again).

I mean, Bush decieves the public every day but he does it in front of real reporters.

"But he does it tooooo"

aka. why it is important to have ethics as leader of one of the most prominent countries in the world.

Mugabe accused Bush of "rank hypocrisy" in response Bush calling Mugabe a violator of human rights.

And everything that this egotistical dictator says about Bush rings true, especially without question the comments about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. In another article, Mugabe is quoted as saying "[Bush] has much to atone for and very little to lecture us on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."


So first of all... Mugabe, a "democratically" elected leader of a nation has been accused of "assault on his people," and his response is not "no, we do not torture people" but rather "George Bush does it too and while that does not make it right, it at least makes it wrong for him to accuse me of such things."

Next... uh, yea, actually good point. Wow. Damnit, I didn't want to say that Mugabe said something right, but darn I think I just did.

As far as I know, the Bush Camp has not responded. What would they possibly say?
This is why (if it weren't already obvious) that it's just not ok for us to torture people and avoid international conventions just because we can get away with it. A dictator in Africa who has been accused of starving his population through mismangement just proclaimed that the US has no moral standing, and he's kinda right. That makes the US ineffective as a world leader in trying to solve conflict and human rights violations. The United States of America, self proclaimed bringer of freedom and democracy and we have no moral standing. Great.

I think on some levels I really am somewhat scared and disappointed that in eight short years we have lost so much credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world and for good reason.

Hitchens: A Death in the Family

A soldier died in Iraq who cited one of his reasons for signing up as Christopher Hitchen's pro-war writings a few years ago.

Hitchens then contacts the family and learns about their son.

An amazing read.

Orwell thought that the Spanish Civil War was a just war, but he also came to understand that it was a dirty war, where a decent cause was hijacked by goons and thugs, and where betrayal and squalor negated the courage and sacrifice of those who fought on principle. As one who used to advocate strongly for the liberation of Iraq (perhaps more strongly than I knew), I have grown coarsened and sickened by the degeneration of the struggle: by the sordid news of corruption and brutality (Mark Daily told his father how dismayed he was by the failure of leadership at Abu Ghraib) and by the paltry politicians in Washington and Baghdad who squabble for precedence while lifeblood is spent and spilled by young people whose boots they are not fit to clean. It upsets and angers me more than I can safely say, when I reread Mark's letters and poems and see that—as of course he would—he was magically able to find the noble element in all this, and take more comfort and inspiration from a few plain sentences uttered by a Kurdish man than from all the vapid speeches ever given.

Truth and Denial

The House will vote on a bill calling the the massacre of Armenians "genocide".

This is one of the times when it seems like our laws and our words don't have meaning.

The only argument I have heard publicly is that it will upset Turkey, therefore "endangering our national security interests."

Other than from Turkey (duh), I have not heard anyone in Congress or the White House say that we should not call it genocide because it wasn't genocide. The argument against the bill has nothing to do with the bill itself, but rather angering Turkey over something they not only refuse to admit, but actively deny.

So because Turkey wants to deny genocide, we should deny genocide, too. But Ahmadinejad is a bad person because he denys the Holocaust.

Best part of the WaPo article:

As a presidential candidate in 2000, George W. Bush pledged to ensure that "our nation properly recognizes" what he called "a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension."

So the President has called it "genocidal" but refuses to call it genocide and urges the House not to call it genocide either.

All good reasons to vote against this bill.

(It also says that GHWB and Pres Clinton avoided using the word, as well, but that Barack and Hillary support the legislation. I guess she's running off speakin' her own mind again!)


Interesting Slate piece titled "Getting Comfy with Genocide: is the word losing its power to shock us into action?" talking about Darfur.

If you haven't heard it before, I think the case for calling the Aremenian situation "genocide" lies in a quote that Hilter said before embarking on the Final Solution.

After all, who remembers the Armenians?"

Please call your Congressman if you can. It takes two minutes.

On Fundamentalism vs. Radicalism

A quick note that was pointed out by someone in a class last year but I think is a mincing of words occuring quite often and liberally.

The word 'fundamentalism' refers to the philosophy of following a religion (or other ideology) to the letter, based directly on The Book (whatever that Book is), strictly adhering to whatever it tells you because you believe it to be the word of the Divine (where the Divine is God, Allah or Ayn Rand)... coming from fundamentals

The word 'radicalism' or 'extremeism' refers to ideologies that go beyond the general beliefs held and professed by everyone else in a given simliar group, and/or seizing on particular aspects while ignoring the whole of the philosophy (evidence, the Ayn Rand Institute) ... going extreme or radical

(yes, these are my off-the-top-of-my-head definitions and by no means constitute an exact definition but are required for the rest of the post)

Islamic fundamentalist are those who adhere stictly to the Koran, Islamic extremist / radicals believe in jihad.

Once you break the words down and pay attention to what they mean, while bin Laden may be both fundamentalist and extremist, it becomes pretty insulting to someone who peacefully abstains from alcohol and pre-marital sex and keeps Halal to wage war on the 'fundamentalists'.

Mitt Again, Hilary, and hopefully a return

First, in following with "Mitt Romney is an Idiot" which perhaps should be rephrased "Mitt Romney: Not so good with that series of tubes"

Over on Slate The Has Been took up Mitt's challenge to his followers that users could create an ad from clips on the website and text and stuff saying what Romney's "really about" and the winning ad as determined by viewers voting and page view (mistake) would be broadcast in wherever however many times. The Has Been made a fabulously funny video that stole the election and now Romney's looking dumb and not counting votes. Awesome! Way!
So Mitt Romney : 0 for 2 in understanding the power and purposes of the internet. I give the guy cheers for trying to let his fans create a video (cuz, hey, it happens on youtube anyway, may as well have them do it for you and give you the rights) but you pay people to be on your campaign for a reason. Let them pick the ad. Really.

If youre looking for more Romney related funny: Slate's Five Brothers

Two:
According to WaPo: "Bill Clinton Endorses Wife's Torture Position"
First of all, that sounds awkward. We couldn't have written that to sound a) not like she likes torture and b) not like its a sex position?

Apparently:

Tim Russert asked candidates if they supported such an exemption to a ban on torture. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she opposed an exemption. Russert then pointed out her husband had supported one. "I'll talk to him later," she said.

Oh good, right, I forgot, Hilary must run her ideas past her husband to get approval and only if he agrees does she get to speak her mind. Good call. Also, wives and husbands must agree on all policy matters. Also, we asked all the wives of all the other candidates the same question an dthen asked the candidates if they agree with their spouses. Oh, wait. No, we didn't do that.



Lastly, telecommunications in South Africa, while they exist, are slower than this blogger is used to, and in combination with other distractions of being abroad, I have been nurishing a tendancy to read something, get frustrated... and then not blog it.
I apoligize. Expect a mini revival. Really should pick up in November though.
Also, a re-categorization of blog topics, too. It'll be fun all around.

Iraq as a dis

A government official in South Africa's response to cries for South Africa to support regime change in Zimbabwe in response to a financial and democratic meltdown and refugee crisis :

"For those who don't understand, I ask that President Bush recruit them and send them to Iraq," a visibly angry Manuel said amid heckling from opposition lawmakers.

Race & Words

Another thought :

We need some words that allow for discussion of race, the biology, and race, the social construct, like how we have "sex" and "gender".

Mitt Romney is an idiot

I'm not sure if the fact that Romney is doing well in the polls right now makes me say "Geez what's wrong with people?" or "Yay, the Republicans who lost the right to govern by being far too compliant with Bush for far too long are surely going to lose if Romney wins the nomination!"




According to Slate's Human Nature column:

"Mitt Romney is demanding lifetime federal GPS tracking of anyone who has used the Internet to commit a sex offense against a minor."

Specifically for people who used the internet ... that cyber, not physical network of computers to commit sex crimes should have to wear lifetime Global Positioning Satellite tracking devices.

Its like he's just playing Political MadLibs... "Ok... I need a crime everyone disagrees with, I need a reference to the menace of modern technology, and then I need a reference to the glories of technology... Ok, I got it..."

SA & Thoughts on the N Word

A long rambling converstation with my South African flatmate and my American flatmate yielded an interesting thought :

To restrict the 'allowed' usage of the N-word to Black people negates the attempt to take the negative meaning away and "take it back" into an empowerment sense.

By saying, "Yes this word is still bad if you, anyone who isn't me, uses it, but it's ok if I use it because then it has a different meaning," still maintains that old definition, still connects it strongly to that word. For a word to gain a new meaning, it must be whole heartedly accepted as having that new meaning, which includes letting whomever wants to express that sentiment use that word to do so.

Sure, if a member of the KKK uses it, they're probably going for that whole bad definition. But if the word is being re-defined, why then can't an ally to the cause also use it, in order to bring more popularity to the positive, empowering definition?

For example, the word 'queer' I would argue can be used by anyone sympathetic to the cause of gay rights, or about groups, events, etc rallying around the issue. The word can now start to mean something positive, because that new meaning can become accepted.

The shoud of shock that covers the N-word continues to give power to the minority of the population that want to use it to hurt another group of people, and with everyone continuing to act as if the word has such extreme power, it continues to do so.

And, just by way of comparison, a word with similar connotation in South Africa simply is not used by anyone appaprently.

Legacy of Apartheid (possibly Part I)

Today I started classes at UCT and found myself in an Urban Geography class where all the students already knew each other because it is a small department, and had all already taken a course with this professor.
In her introduction on the topic, she asked a question along the lines of "What is the main cause of housing inequity in South Africa?" with a student offering the answer of the Grouping of Persons Act, the law at the backbone of apartheid.
What struck me was the extent to which this answer seemed obvious and factual. The question of housing inequality was not a rambling of musings on not only race relations, but class and prejudice and land use, and intentional and unintential biases, but rather one Act which had codified humans by race in a country where democratic elections only began a little more than 10 years ago.
It could be easily argued that housing inequalities in the US are also attributed to racism of the past, that lack of access to resources forty years ago created the self segregated neighborhoods of today. But what it does not answer is how on the surface the situations can have the same answer when you compare a law that was overturned ten years ago, to a laws that were overturned thirty or forty years ago.

I think my question really, is if South Africa sees all these problems, and is working to fix them, the WTF's wrong with the US. For example, I assume because of the legacy of aparthied, housing is a constitutional right in South Africa, and the goverment is required to show evidence of making progress on the issue. They have built 2 million subsidized houses since 1996, and while some are small or crappy or somewhat falling apart, it seems quite better than zero.

So I'm curious to know, and maybe I'll try to research this before my work load goes crazy, but what happened after the Civil Rights movements in the US in comparison to what is happening now in South Africa? Who's on the right track? I'm almost afraid to say, but feel it may be true, that even if South Africa is attacked the inequities head on and therefore more effectively, that knowledge might not even be of use to policy in the US, because the current issue isn't direct racism anymore, but, as I've argued, more classism. It seems the time to address the outcomes of institutionalized racism were right after we ended it, rather than waiting out to see what would happen.

Dealing with Brown

Indeed, education research has long suggested that the economic mix of a school matters more than the racial mix in promoting the academic achievement of students. UCLA professor Gary Orfield, a strong proponent of racial desegregation, notes that "educational research suggests that the basic damage inflicted by segregated education comes not from racial concentration but the concentration of children from poor families."

Yay, Slate!

TMZ and the State of Reporting

In some respects, TMZ, which first appeared in December 2005, represented a throwback to earlier journalism, when many reporters relied on documents rather than arranged interviews to break news.

So... TMZ does actual journalism, actual reporting, goes out and conducts investigations relevant to their given subject matter, in a throwback to 'earlier' journalism. Meanwhile the 24 hour news networks regurgitate what TMZ tells them say, and otherwise conduct interviews with talking heads and ignore real issues.

Awesome!

quick thoughts on Obama, Faith & Homosexuality

Obama gave a speech decrying those who have 'hijacked' religion (Go Obama, and say what needs to be said).
(Short article worth a read)

The WaPo piece mentions the differing views of homosexuality between traditional and liberal Christians.

I don't understand when 'traditional' Chrisitans emphasize the Old Testament in order to fractionalize and demonize others. The Bible quotes most often used to denounce homosexuality (ex. Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Kings) all come from the Old Testament.

So why do these Christians forget the Christ part of their religion and look at the Old Testament (often angry, vengeful God) rather than the New Testament (Jesus came and forgave all sins, love one another)? Theoretically, it is a somewhat chronological book, and the stuff that comes later should matter more than earlier lessons taken out of context to scare people.

Just my only slightly educated two cents...

More Fluff for the Kids

Newsweek ran an article titled "The Teen Drinking Dilemna" (in print edition, I have yet to find it online).

Rules of real (versus fluff) journalism broken (yes, admittedly my rules from reading journalism, never seriously studying it, but really, aren't the readers relevant?)aka, written as if factual or relevant, when that’s really questionable:
1. Article begins with an anecdote from 2002, five years old, as a starting rationale for their publishing on this topic.

2. A graph charting what percentage of 15-16 year olds had x occasions of 'binge' drinking during a 30 day period without a) their definition of binge drinking and b) not connecting it directly to possible health problems.
"Experts" often describe binge drinking as having a given number of drinks, usually 4-5, per 'occasion', which given enough food and time span for consumption, does not even necessarily lead to a frightening level of inebriation. And even engaging in such behavior as often as once a weekend does not necessarily impair someone's educational or social life.

3. Uses same chart to say “Contrary to popular belief, underage drinking is a bigger problem in Europe than in the US,” and to state that France has the highest rate of cirrhosis of the liver as definitive evidence that lower drinking ages fail to prevent 'bad' drinking, and not considering the gallons of wine that the French drink.

4. Contrasts a family that discusses drinking and allows responsible drinking with meals against parents who give their kids alcohol “cuz they’ll just get it anyway,” as the only two options, and because the second family exists, the first one must just be lucky enough to not have their kids rushed to the ER, and aren’t a viable answer to the question of what to do.

Newsweek wanted to write an article to scare parents away from giving their kids five kegs for their graduation parties.

I’ll accept that advice without buying into any single one of the reasons they give.

The problem with underage drinking is because of our culture that expects their children to somehow magically learn about how alcohol works in the body at 11:59pm on their last minute of being 20 years old, without ever talking about it publicly and honestly
You shouldn’t buy unlimited alcohol for your kids’ party, because even if you raised them to be responsible drinkers, you are not their friends’ parents, and unless you plan to have a pre-party educational session (not a bad idea) and actually monitor them, you potentially set your own children up to be knowledgeable and for the rest to pass out in pools of their own vomit.

If, instead, we all raised our children to learn how to use alcohol responsibly (and not necessarily excluding “fun” with alcohol), then they would all know how to avoid falling asleep in their own vomit.
And some random statistic on cirrhosis does not disprove this theory.

But the Children!

Today on New Jersey 101.5 [Yes, I'm home. Yes, I've been to the diner] the DJ (I believe it was Michele Pilenza) discussed with listeners apparent upcoming legislation barring discrimination against transgendered people.

Between the DJ as moderator and the call-in listeners, they seemed to arrive on a decision that "themselves" as adults would be fine having a transgendered co-worker, even if they were not comfortable with the whole thing, they would get along for the sake of their job. However, everyone had this concern about transgendered teachers being around young 'impressionable' minds. One woman stated that we should 'definitely' do studies first to see what the effects could be on 'these children' ten years down the road. Listeners reached a consensus that discrimination should be barred at most workplaces, but that schools are exceptions.

One listener said that a teacher could hide homosexuality, but not being transgendered. Another listener (actually the same that insisted on extensive studies) said, "Have you ever seen someone trying to be the opposite gender? You can always tell." Oh yea? Check the portraits accompanying Newsweek's series "Rethinking Gender." And why would should we expect a teacher to hide homosexuality? To change pronouns or avoid discussion of a possible someone who is very important to them? Come on, classrooms aren't the military, silly.

Yet, I fail to understand their concern. I would think that a transgendered teacher actually should be less threatening than a gay teacher. While having a homosexual teacher might encourage children to consider homosexuality acceptable (oh no! not that!), I think a transgendered teacher would just teach children to not lock themselves into a gender role, and instead explore themselves, whoever and however that may be. Maybe transgendered teachers would improve girls' scores in math and science or something like that.

The DJ took the stance of saying she "just wasn't sure yet," at least a step above the callers who seemed on the verge of tears over "What would happen to the children!?" (Of course, with none of them really elaborating into exactly what they were afraid might happen.)

I chalk this up to another "I'm actually prejudiced, but I know I can't express my prejudice outloud because this prejudice is no longer acceptable, but if I tweak the argument to say 'Oh, well, you know, I'm fine with it, but what if...' than I can get away with being a frightened, ignorant bigot."

... A slight step in the right direction, because at least it may lead to some, less discrimination in some workplaces, but still, a call of whiny fear rather than actual argument.

Top-Free Rights

Awesome

Jill Coccaro awarded $29k by NYPD for being wrongly arrested for being topless. A court decision from 1992 affirmed that anywhere that men can be topless, women can be topless, too.


Damn right, why shouldn't we be able to? Rock on, girl.

Info :
TERA : Topfree Equal Rights Association
TopFreedom

Disease Prevention: Good, Baby Prevention: Bad

NYT profiles the reaction to a new Trojan condom ad that features a bar full of pigs where one guy turns into a classy dude after he grabs a condom.

Advertising agency :

We have to change the perception that carrying a condom for women or men is a sign they’re on the prowl and just want to have sex.

Fox and CBS :

Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy... We do not find it appropriate for our network even with late-night-only restrictions.

2001 Report on condom advertising :

Some networks draw a strong line between messages about disease prevention — which may be allowed — and those about pregnancy prevention, which may be considered controversial for religious and moral reasons.

I guess the backlash from the ignorance of HIV during the 80s and now in Africa that the "moral and religious" reactors cannot touch disease prevention, but can still be pro-baby, anti-abortion, while being anti-contraception.

This hits me as a bizarre line to draw, that having sex with a condom with the intention of preventing disease and a side effect of prevention conception can be accepted, but having sex with a condom with the intention of preventing an unwanted birth and also preventing disease creates controversy.

Not to mention, it doesn't seem like the ad actually say its not for disease prevention, it just doesn't emphasize it like the network would like them to? I don't know if I even remember the ugly Trojan Men commercials addressing disease prevention (though I could be wrong... corrections?)

Possibilities?
- The part that effects men (disease) matters and the part that effects women (pregnancy) doesn't matter?
- The purpose of sex is to create babies, not to pass on disease, so its ok to try to prevent the 'unnatural' one?
- Ads that focus on preventing disease transmission end up focusing on a downside of sex and make the "moral and religious" ones think that it will spread word of reasons to avoid sex?

I don't know, I'm really pushing myself on those.

Additionally, this ad series, called 'Evolve', creates a shift from condoms = raunchy horny guy (Trojan Man!) to condom = responsible eligible guy. Yay! Let's encourage a positive mentality that leads towards healthy decisions!

Curiosity :: Does anyone know if Fox & CBS run ads for the pill and NuvaRing and everything? I don't watch them enough to know if they think its ok to advertise hormone methods (which, I guess if they do, they could say are for those suffering from severe cramps, etc) but not ok to advertise condoms for contraception.

Let's look again, though! Fox has problems with condoms for something other than disease prevention!? Home of "When Bears Attack IV" and "Cops"? I smell another example of "an overload of violence is fine, but sex is dirty!"

Anyway, I find it incredible that this distinction on condom matters that much to "certain groups".

Furthermore, I'm frustrated that it makes me stand up for Trojan for a minute, because they have 75% of the market share, yet do worse in quality tests, and wrote a ridiculously biased survey grading university in terms of sexual health.

the anomaly of white trash

Over at the New Democratic Review, Stephen Mack revisits one of my favorite topics, the connections, and/or lack thereof, between class & race.

I think it leans towards a point I've been thinking about for a little bit. Race and culture are not the same, even though there are times when they overlap. While WASP indicates both white and rich, and while some stereotype or numeric averages of income and race of "the ghetto" might overlap being black with being poor, neither of those notions meant that all white people are rich nor that all black people are poor.

The concept of advertising towards "groups" that the agencies "understand" in order to market their product at whatever stereotyped and commodified version of a culture, or branch of a culture that they want to target continues to pretty much freakin disgust me, especially that people buy into it all. The mother of invention is supposed to be necessity, not a clever marketing pitch.

one of the stupidest things I've ever heard stated publicly

Wow.

Gonzales's defense that firings didn't happen for political reasons because it would be hard to do because everyone would probably read about it in the papers...

... while he's under massive investigation and huge scandal all over all media

... wins the Idiot Award.


One of the dumbest thigns I have ever heard someone say under oath.

Pump all the damn gas you want on May 15

Ok, lets break down this stupid Dont Pump Gas email

Be sure to get your gas before the 15th. Don't put it off, we want this boycott to work for the 15th. There are 73,000,000! + Americ an members currently on the internet network, and
the average car takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up.

If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00
(that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil companies' pockets for just one day...

Uh... Are you kidding?

First of all, do you think with the amount of stupid media this is getting that the oil companies don't know that this is planned? And might see a dip on whatever day of the week May 15th is, but have the same freakin profit totals at the end of the week are just fine?

The concept of one day boycotts are to show the strength of the consumer base. Buying more efficient cars or motorcycles, bicycling to work, walking to work, telecommuting when possible... all blows to the oil industry.

Not filling up your tank for one day? Not so much. Granted, it has been over 4 years since I owned a car that I drove regularly, but last I checked I wasn't filling it up daily, and I don't think I would have had to plan very much to not fill up on one given day.


I'm sorry, this whole silly notion really really bothers me.

People don't fill up their huge SUV that they use to drive half a mile down the street instead of walking and 90% of the time are the only occupant, and don't maintain their car and tires for efficiency are going to pat themselves on the back for being participants in democracy, while making no effort, or even appearing to make an effort to wean themselves off the teat of the oil companies.

Not to mention, I don't really care if oil prices go up. Let's look... gas prices went down, SUV's became popular, gas prices went up. Coincidence? If a higher gas tax had been levied earlier, then there wouldn't be so many gas guzzlers on the road. We can't get the adorable, small, efficient cars that they have everywhere else in the world because we don't have a strong enough consumer base.

Sure, I don't like the fact that oil execs profit off of all of this ridiculous, or that we're polluting the air, but dropping oil prices at the pump won't do much to solve either of those problems. The notion of putting a cap on CEOs salary with regard to how much their lowest paid employees would be a step in the right direction, but that's for another day. (For example, if lowest paid employees make x CEOs can only make 10x).

So, no. Pump as much damn gas as you want, unless you're instead going to take a day to start changing your habits.

Ride to Work Day - check out the fact sheet. As a much better improvement over cars, but not as far as moving to bicycles, if you have to go far, motorcycles tear up the road less, take up less parking spaces, keep a higher average speed and less time stopped, so that less braking and stopping time at 0 mpg while still burning oil.

C.I.C.L.E advice - cycling, its easier and more feasible than you think

clearing up some chatter...

Yes, I know I'm late on this topic, but I had to let it stew for a bit.
Partly a response to the chatter in the comments over on Along Came Politics

a. Seung-Hui Cho
Let me first emphasize some facts that seem to be ignored. He was in therapy. The chair of the English department took it upon herself to pull him aside and tutor and talk with him. Yes, his roommates tried to be nice to him, but I don't think he really wanted to be friends with them.

Point? People did try to help him out. Yes, I guess they could have done more, but you also have to accept that you can't totally predict who will snap and who won't and you just have to try your best.

The question isn't "oh no, what can we do to help him," this 'other'. Take a step back and question what is about our society that some people have to be winners and some have to be losers and whether or not you support a media monolith that creates a limited image of success, and of what society accepts. Don't fret over what more therapy we could have put him in to keep him away from us, but why there are "crazy" people, "crazy" being the social label applied, not to be confused with actual mental disorders.


b. Crossing 1 2

Had VT not happened the week before, no one would be thinking that a drug dealer arrested on a gun possession was on the brink of shooting up the school. Because he wasn't. Maybe I'm wrong and this was a sign of something to come in a year, but carrying a gun because you think it makes you a badass is not the same as systematically planning, complete with writings and video and pictures, to assemble tons of ammo and gun down as many people as possible.

Not. the. same.

I say that, because he lived across the street from me last semester and was over all the time. Yea we all thought he was a little off, but then again, so are half the people that live up here, to some degree. What are you 'supposed' to do about it? Be nice to him, talk to him sometimes, and hope he doesn't get arrested. Not that I think he shouldn't receive the consequences for breaking the law, but I'm concerned that being sent to jail is going to officially turn him into a
criminal, rather than helping him out. The odds are something like 9 to 1 against him, and everyone in jail, that they'll be going back, creating career criminals, rather than actually making a strong effort to rehabilitate. He already thinks he's a gangster, now he really will fall in with prison gangs, because the pressure is ridiculous, and then probably stay in all that when he gets out.

1. Figure out whats wrong with our society that can make people so upset (VT)
2. Reform the prisons so they can actually help society instead of creating hardened criminals (USC)

More proof that race is a weird concept

An update from Bogotá!

We (the US) would consider everyone here to be Hispanic, but since Hispanic = the mix of indigenous and Europeans, the people here are every color of the rainbow, with some who dont ´look´ Hispanic, at least as Americans would percieve.

Then, race here means indigenous, mestizo, white, or black.

I have a Colombian cousin who´s super pale, with freckles and red hair.

A revison: race as a perception from outsiders of onces ethnicity or background is silly.

Lets not even get started on white African-Americans...

Revisiting: Arguments on the Overworked High School Student

We currently sit in the late-April, early-May rush known by high schools students and guidance counselors as Decision Time and by bored writers and public psychologists as Fretting About the State of Our Child's Worrying Time. Though surely, someone else must have said this by now, quite obviously all we just need to chill out.

While students around the country have finally received all of their thick or thin letters, including my own sister, the adult world takes this as a moment to pause and reflect on the perceived declining state of affairs of the students' well being, or pressures, or whatever else they threw at them. The latest phase of pressure on our students, supposedly, consists of having to be both smart and sociably well-rounded, qualities that have always generally been good for human beings to possess. On top of that pressure, their attempting-to-be open-minded parents struggle with what they want for their kids, and what they think they should want for their kids – or something like that.

A recent NYT piece profiling the 'amazing girls' of some New England town quote the parents whining about their children's pristinely planned and executed childhoods, and how they themselves just cannot rise above the social pressures that they tell their kids to surpass. Are these parents just products of the 'I'm special' movement as well? They ignore the easy solutions to their difficult decisions. Either you support your child and do not try to pull strings, honestly wanting them to follow whatever works best for their personal development regardless of grades or college admissions and therefore set a non-contradictory example – or you don't.

First I blame the parents for failing to have the strength to stand by their own principles, flowering out of their post-flower child upbringings. Then I do worry about their children, but only because of the warped double-edged neighborhoods they grew up in.

In another byte out of the NYT piece, two students treasure the sacrifice of have no social life to the alter of college admissions (with the implication that they only deem worthy of application those schools that would require them to forgo such adolescent fun). I really hope that this exchange of having an adolescence for having a fulfilling college experience - which includes non-resume items – works out for them in the end. Because if these students hit college, lock themselves in dorm rooms and then have mental break downs second semester freshman year, I would stick one in the 'not worth it' column. (Even, if I supposed, those non-resume items might just turn into interview fodder for the next step of their lives. "I sometimes go to museums for fun instead of studying!" "Oh, please tell me more!")

A coalition of liberal arts colleges, also originating out of the hallowed halls of the northeast, have begun a call for an end to college ratings, emanating out of colleges refusing to submit information to Princeton Review, Barron's, et. al. This duo of stories would appear to lean back into the 'everyone's special' mentality, and maybe solve the problem of everyone getting every to calm down.

While the rankings system needs to be revised, and while students need to wrench control back from crazed parents and guidance counselors and we all probably need a deep breath, this does not solve the problem.

Universities are not created equal, and those that put in effort to improve their quality of education or services deserve accolades. A reformed ranking system would help differentiate between colleges, the onus just has to swap over to the kids to figure out what qualities they need, other than being in the top 10 list.

I call for a referendum on everyone who preaches to 'just get involved with whatever interest you, but make sure you hit some of these suggestions' to just chop off the second half of that sentence.

I call for students to take the simple step of influencing the conversation, rather than just obliging, or even worse, buying into it all. Yes, I ask that teenagers take responsibility. Yes, I believe they can, because if some can, then the rest can follow suit, especially as the conversation does start to change.

Then lastly, if we really do want to look at these phenomenon somewhat scholarly, and how really to best prepare students for college, ask those who know best – recent and current college students. Stop looking at the situation from the inside, from the perspective that cannot know its own outcome – the most important aspect of a study. Pull together some college kids and ask them what works and what hurts and then rest assured that students do know what's good for them, at the end of the day.

some parts of the south scare me...

Students attend school's first integrated prom


Woooow.... Read the whole thing, it just gets worse and worse.

Some quotes :

"The white people have theirs, and the black people have theirs. It's nothing racial at all."
Um, definitely racial, even if you want to try to argue it isn't racist.

"In the past, two queens were chosen -- one white, one black."

"If they're not coming tonight it's because either they had to work and they couldn't get out of it or because their parents are still having an issue because they grew up in south Georgia."
I'm pretty sure it is either that last one, or they couldn't get out of work because they don't care about integration.

"Valerie McKellar echoed that sentiment as she watched white and black students pose together.
'That is so fake. There is nothing real about that,' she said.
'That's just like you're cooking a half-baked cake, putting the icing on it, and when you cut the cake, the cake ain't no good. That's how this prom is,' she said."

Yes. This really really just now happened in a school in Georgia.



Some of my friends have been talking about taking a cross country road trip, and cutting through the south. One of them, a black male, said he's questioning how comfortable he is driving through the south with a black male and a white girl or two and how people will react. We told him he was over reacting.... maybe not?

Um... Berlin, much?

US erects Baghdad wall

Uh.... hello? I though we built a wall in city in Berlin, back in the day, and it didn't go over so well.

For some reason, we seem to be on a wall building kick (Palestine? Mexico? Baghdad?)

Am I crazy? Did we not try this before and it sucked?

Lobbying for the Big Picture

Do I live in a country of short sighted, ego-centric fourteen-year-olds (I will not ask “when did this become...” because it seems a persistent problem)? When it comes to political discourse, the major talk within mainstream media outlets, not to mention a good chunk of citizen media, reeks of impatience and immaturity, and an ignorance of the bigger picture. How about we all grow up a bit?

First, let's clear some things. The government represents a manifestation of the general, aggregated interests of all constituents, for the sake of moving on and making decisions. No, it is not perfect. No, it does not always watch out for everyone. That presents a call to arms to work towards perfecting it, rather than a reason to give up with abandon and feed into the failure, first person to the top of the hill wins mentality.

The public sphere exists for no honest reason but service to others, and, more specifically, service to everyone. As part of this premise of organized society, public officials and those who aim to influence them work to improve the current state of affairs, however interpreted.

Few phrases bother me more than the argument that “ nothing ever changes.” Have you been paying attention for the last couple centuries? The history of the world consists of nothing but change. I do not care that similarities or patterns persist, one cannot deny that, in the long run, situations improve. But instead of efficient, and well-meaning improvement, we often receive hacked together, mediocre 'solutions' that serve to further a person or a group more than the rest of us.

How to do this?

Step one: stop watching the 24 hour news networks and lamenting about the lack of intelligent discussion to your friends, and say it louder. People forget that change happens both slowly and requires patience to a achieve the big goal, but that change necessitates the small steps along the way. Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and said it “was hurting America,” -- canceled. Morgan Spurlock tears apart the bigger is better mentality of McDonalds – and the 'Super Size' becomes replaced with salads. Hell, Upton Sinclair writes The Jungle eventually leading to the creation of the FDA. Surely, these must merely represent coincidences.

Therefore, stop imagining the monster as too large. Big, evil, controlling organizations, for example, still have something bigger than them – economic forces. Create a siltation where it becomes economically less viable to support whatever status quo they currently stand by and they will fall ridiculously fast. Then repeat. And again. One foot in front of the other, and eventually the landscape starts to look different.

Step two: stop trying to convince your ideological opponent (or neutral passerby) using arguments important to you. What you believe to be morally or socially correct is irrelevant. Before the liberals get too excited, this applies equally to everyone from Evangelicals to hard-core secularists, to those considering themselves moderate. Neither the fact that people agree with you, nor that you believe you hold the moral high ground means a thing with regards to convincing someone else. Figure out who you need to address, what they care about, and format your argument accordingly. Sounds incredibly simple and obvious but so often ignored. Do not feel afraid that you will abandon your cause by modifying its argument and reason, instead accept that this gets the job done.

Then again, this last piece of advice pertains to those who honestly support whatever cause based on a belief that it helps everyone in the long run. Those engaged in discourse for the purposes of furthering only themselves need not heed. Get the egos out. No reason exists for politics to really be about winning and losing. This game continues much farther than even terms without limits.

Why complain quietly when you can shout. Find the small steps in to whatever needs to be changed and start walking. And keep in mind why you're doing it. Don't be afraid to actually talk to people on the other side. Negotiation is not only not a myth that requires diluting one's message or purpose. Actual discussion of issues, rather than fights, lead to solutions, rather than partisan plans of attack. So grow up, move on, and get some stuff done for once.

Men CARE

According to USC Men Care (Men Creating Attitudes for Rape-free Environments), according to confidential surveys given to 700+ undergrads, 79% of men at USC say they stop sexual activity when asked.

That means 21% don't.

That's slightly more than 1 in 5.

Edit: ok so I read more :

Statement : I stop sexual activity when asked, even if I am sexually aroused.
Strongly agree : 57.6%
Agree : 21.5%
Somewhat agree : 7.4%
Neutral : 6.6%
Somewhat disagree : 2.5%
Disagree : 1.3%
Strongly Disagree : 3.1%

Letter Re: Increased Security at Bovard

Letter I am sending to the DT Editors in response to most recent article on escalation of security measures at Bovard...

A clear contradiction exists between Todd Dickey claiming that the new security for Bovard will operate with a list, and DPS claiming he has only been instructed to prevent a student from entering if it is completely clear they will create a disturbance. Either the system operates with a list or it operates based on appearances, but this article and its quoted statements fall short of clearing up any disagreement.

Then in yet another twist of trying to explain their actions, DPS Chief Officer Drayton claims they want to prevent "these people, unknown" from doing "something" to people the building -- as if unknown, non-students plan to attack employees inside Bovard. Three differing reasons, coming from only two people, for why the administration increased security between themselves and theoretically their most important constituents, the students.

Furthermore, Dickey continues to propagate the falsification that students "took over" President Sample's office. In reality, the students sat peacefully in the waiting room, certain to allow ample room for anyone to pass through them, and merely performing the function that the room was built for -- waiting to talk to the President.

As many have said, USC's reactions to the SCALE protest have been ridiculous. The recently printed letter from the President of the FLA does a moderate job of trying to defend their actions (though while still missing key points). USC administration continues to fail to take the mature route of addressing the issues at hand publicly, in an intellectual and academic manner and instead has retreated to barricading themselves in Bovard’s ivory tower.

Back to females again

Great response to WaPo article at Garden State to Golden State (not to mention, sympathy for her blog name!)

Basically the Washington Post wrote a pretty bizarre fluff article about the woman who takes over when Tony Snow is sick. Two pages on her nervousness, and what other people think about her, and how she's doing just gosh darn fine so far, and how she met her husband. Weird, all over the place, and yes, not something they would think about writing about a guy.

Not to mention... if their second in command for Press Secretary is this nervous and unsure of her self -- let me remind you press secretary, aka your job is to speak in public, all the time, biggest public speaking job there is -- then what is wrong with who the administration is hiring!!!??? You can hire anyone in the whole country, and after your first choice you couldn't find anyone who was confident? Where are you looking?
Is this just another sign of administration incompetence?

Worth a read, I'd say.

"She may be petite, but she brings a lot of punch to the job." Ain't that just so sweet! Gee, thanks!

kf Beats Me to It

good job in pointing out poor LAT reporting over at kausfiles

A sentence that could not only have been written before this march took place but before virtually every march of the last 30 years for any cause. ...

NYC Condoms

New York City is giving away free condoms all over the city and they're branded for NYC. Way cool. Apparently they're flying and everyone's taking them as quick as they can make them. Good job.

FYI: I work in the Resource Room and people always ask if we carry Trojans. We don't because a) Lifestyles (who NYC went with) and Durex and the others we have do better in clinical durability tests than Trojans and b) Trojan refuses to cut deals to let the university buy in bulk, so the other ones that do are much cheaper. Tidbit for the day!

Speaking of Student Protests...

Way to go Conservative Mormon School.

"BYU Students And Faculty Protest Cheney As Commencement Speaker"

LAT Follow Up

USC Defends Tough Response


Important clarification :
USC alleges that the students' "disruptive behavior has interfered with the normal functioning of university business."

The students on the inside, the one's served with immediate interim suspension, were not disrupting university business. They were sitting in a waiting room, with a clear path from door to door, spending time sitting, reading, working on laptops.

The students outside, it could possibly argue, were 'disruptive' by holding a loud vigil all day.

But it was the students on the inside that were served with suspension for disruption, not the ones being loud.

Also served in the letter...

permitting others to engage in misconduct prohibited within the university community. Failing to confront and prevent the misconduct, notify an appropriate university official of the misconduct..

is apparently against the rules as well. So theoretically, not only all the students protesting outside, but all students who walked by the students protesting outside, who failed to call DPS and alter them to the supposed disruptance (which, I assume is what the school was trying to allude to, since offices were not disturbed) should also be hauled in and charged with something.

The Day USC Defeated Apathy

Media Coverage :
The Nation
CBS
LAT
AP
DT
LA Voice
SCALE's blog
Union Voice aka click here support


My immediate commentary :

1. Someone in the administration of USC willingly made a decision to not allow the students to go to the bathroom without forfeiting their stand. A USC administrator actually thought it was a better decision to force to students to have not other option but to piss in buckets in Sample's waiting room than to let them go to the bathroom down the hall. Fucking inhuman, uncivil. You want to talk about not treating other people like they're human, too? You've got to be kidding me, this is ridiculous.

1b. Let me reiterate... USC thought it was best to leave tuition paying students to decide between pissing in buckets or giving up on their personal ethics, beliefs, and leadership steps -- attributes that the university professes to foster?

From the Code of Ethics of The University of Southern California ...

At the University of Southern California, ethical behavior is predicated on two main pillars: a commitment to discharging our obligations to others in a fair and honest manner, and a commitment to respecting the rights and dignity of all persons. ...

... building USC's stature as an ethical institution...

We nurture an environment of mutual respect and tolerance. As members of the USC community, we treat everyone with respect and dignity, even when the values, beliefs, behavior, or background of a person or group is repugnant to us. This last is one of the bedrocks of ethical behavior at USC and the basis of civil discourse within our academic community.

We do not harass, mistreat, belittle, harm, or take unfair advantage of anyone. We are careful to distinguish between legal behavior on the one hand and ethical behavior on the other, knowing that, while the two overlap in many areas, they are at bottom quite distinct from each other. While we follow legal requirements, we must never lose sight of ethical considerations.

2. Immediate suspension, followed by expulsion, which could only be appealed after 2 weeks, which would effectively fail the students for the semester because they would not be able to attend the most crucial weeks of class. For sitting for 6 hours. Yea, USC is that scared, apparently.

3. In response to LA Voice calling jail worse than suspension... First, they expected some student conduct issues, but not expulsion before other things were threatened. Maybe it could have been planned better around this blow, but that's just learning for next time, like everything in college. But jail worse than suspension? No way. A rap sheet for protest is way more a badge of honor than paying $20,000 and not being able to graduate and ending with half of the student group not being allowed on campus and therefore unable to continue the campaign for the rest of the semester... A few hours or days in jail versus no diploma, $20,000 down the drain, kicked out of your place and killing the campaign? uh...

4. How do you change the scenario to make the change you want to see become someone else's best interest? If they're business people, you make them look bad so it threatens their bottom line.... Objective accomplished. The conversation is now everywhere and USC is scrambling to look like they didn't just make their own students piss in buckets. Create the impetus that changes the game and forces their hand.

5. Props to SCALE for being good grassroots organizers. In contrast to Answer coalition protests, the group does not fall into today's protest model of posting a full minute by minute agenda on the internet so the cops know exactly where to be and having the organizers be the focus of attention, rather than the issues and the people. As Joshua Glenn lamented in Slate recently, "These days, whether you attend a rally, sign a petition, or forward a MoveOn e-mail, it can be a disempowering experience... obscured within these and other well-intended political actions is a philosophy of passive political spectatorship: they organize, we come; they talk, we listen." Way to break the current mold, SCALE. A protest where an apolitical, generally cynical friend of mine is inspired to personally lead a group to march in a circle around Bovard? A good protest, with real empowerment. Rock on.

6. Go USC students. I'd estimate at least 100 students were there throughout the day. Constant vigil? Damn right. Spontaneous adaptations to protest? Yup. That many people finally all getting together and getting everyone on campus talking? Good job.

Who's University? Our University...

No Comments, Just Complaint

"Reality TV Gets Real"

But isn’t it, in its way, exploiting their own tragedy? Television—and especially reality television—is increasingly sensationalized. It takes bigger and louder gimmicks just to get noticed.

No commentary... just a complaint...

Someone (named Allison Samuels, but she's not alone) makes money to write that? And we assume she graduated past freshman year high school English and tried to write an 'edgy' 'controversial' paper 'questioning norms? Newsworthy enough for MSNBC includes the 'new' phenomenon that "Television is increasingly sensationalized"?


Not to mention that her thrilling commentary on the enfolding events arrive in the final paragraph, the previous 800 words of which merely consist of her watching TV?

Really, now... failing to have intelligent and or, I don't know, news on the 'news networks' is bad enough. Can we please write slightly better than a fifth grader trying to impress their teacher?

Politics & Money

Wizbang Politics...

I remember in 2000, when total spending for the cycle for all offices from President to Alderman first exceeded $1 billion, the whiners like McCain were complaining in full voice, but that same year, Proctor & Gamble spent more than $3 billion advertising their personal hygiene and cleaning products. How can it be "excessive" to spend a third of what's spent on toothpaste and soap on our political future? Not to mention the political numbers were for a two-year cycle, while P&G advertises at that level EVERY year . . .

Its "excessive" because it is also excessive to spend $3 billion on selling soap. It is excessive because we do not trust companies to advertise to us based on honest virtues that make them better than their competitors, but we should be voting based on the best candidate rather than the most suave advertising campaign.

College & Money

Semi good interview at Newsweek on Congress making college more accessible.

Rep. George Miller (CA-D) spends too much time reminding the reader that the Bushies may be pretending like they are or have been working on education but really have failed to move until the Dems put pressure on them... It makes him sound catty and insistent.

He discusses improving costs for middle class families (a definite issue, though, I do slightly wonder how much of an issue it is for in state schools, which he then discusses later). At times the interviewer brings up poorer people, and he comments on it, and theres some weird cross over, but basically the article seems choppy.

Wow...
"Right now, about 35 percent of state college students need remedial education."
Ridiculous! More than a third of students who can get into state college still have to take remedial classes? Can we please fix education yet? Please?

Some Urban Guerrilla-ist Did Well...

SW Corner of Adams & Magnolia

ps. the arrow is pointing the wrong way for the intersection
pps. please excuse cell camera quality

No, Its not that complicated; Arguments on the Overworked High School Student

NYT adds to the "oh sigh we must worry about our overworked HS youth" pile

Inexplicably, they focus on what they call "amazing girls"... at a co-ed public school. They barely touch on some issues of 'feminism' or 'feminist quandaries', but mostly just in addition to general issues of kids trying to hard to get into the top 50 or so schools. I did not see any explanation for focusing on females... odd.

Ms. Kelley, however, wondered aloud: “Don’t you worry that she never rebelled? When I was growing up, you were supposed to rebel.”
But she acknowledged that she had sent her own mixed signals. “As I’m sitting here saying I don’t care what kind of grades she gets, I’m thinking, she comes home with a B, and I say: ‘What’d you get a B for? Who gave you a B? I’m going to talk to them.'
...
Mr. Mobley nodded. “We’re not above it,” he said. “It’s complicated.”

No. Its not complicated. Either you support your child and don't try to pull strings, and honestly want them to do what is best for their personal development regardless of grades or college admissions and set a non-contradictoryexample or you don't. Done, end of story. You either simultaneously say "oh honey, that's fine, as long as I know you are growing up well, and are developing your mind and self, then go for it," or but still lay on the pressure... or you (and all the other parents around you, because once one of you rebels, that little act of rebellion will be oh so cool and everyone will want to fall in line and be as liberal and open minded as you) actually support your child in what you profess to be your own values.

But really, this small alcove of valuing education primarily as it appears on paper but at least (unfortunately?) being aware of the ensuing conflicts that NYT chose to profile seems to at least be indicative of the tone these types of articles take. While these articles frequently try to profile the contradictions the students receive, this piece goes further to include the parents. The supposedly rational, intelligent people with multiple degrees from Ivies who also grew up with rebellion being praised. These parents struggle with this? This piece and its interview questions and their personal responses fail to shame them in realizing the results of their actions and attitudes? The parents merely have to stop contradicting themselves, collectively or individually, and then game over, problem solved, at least for their children, who would then theoretically become well rounded people with solid perspectives.

“I said, ‘Aliza, this is crazy, I have so much homework to do, and I won’t be able to relax until I do it all. I haven’t gone out in weeks!’ And Aliza (who had also been staying in on Fridays and Saturdays to do homework) pointed out: ‘I’d rather get into college.’ ”

I really hope that this is some sort of (questionable) trade off, where these students trade having an adolescence for having a fulfilling college experience - which includes non-resume items! (Even, if I supposed, those non-resume items might just turn into interview fodder for the next step of their lives. "I sometimes go to museums for fun instead of studying" "Oh, please tell me more.")

Want to really know what all these pressures and questions will mean? Talk to college students or recent graduates who also had come through this school. Studying an ongoing phenomenon from inside, this this, fails to illuminate the whole picture. Do a longitudinal study, and get back to these kids in three years, and ask how their high school experience influence their college experience, and what they want to do when they graduate. The responses should be much more interesting and informing (rather than standard alarmist). You need that distance from the experience, and the enclave of attitude, to determine what affects you and from where your own attitudes arise, in contrast to others' experiences.



I'll save commenting on their terrible dilemmas of what to wear, and the fact that none of the non-'amazing girls' were even discussed for another day.

In summary : another piece of alarmist journalism with a small subject pool with its own answers obvious.

Don't let anyone say Stewart lets his guests get away...

Jon Stewart interviewed John Bolton. I believe Bolton is the highest Bush administration official (past or present)? And he hit him pretty well to get at least interesting commentary about the administration's supposed point of view.



Bolton :
"I suggest the President has a responsibility to be true to the people who voted for him and to put people in office who are sympathetic to his positions. Otherwise, what's the point of having elections?"

Uh.... no. The President is elected to serve the people... all of them... the best interest of the American public as a whole. "Democratic theory," which Bolton refers to several times, does not believe that whoever wins the election gets to dictate for four years because 51% of the electoral college voted in such a manner on one day. The President's job is to continually address issues with regards to what will be the best decision for all of us, because we cannot all make those decisions collectively and daily.

That hurts that, according to Bolton, the administration's mentality is still that of "having" 'political capital' which means they can now do whatever they want (leaving the fact that they already 'spent' all of their supposed political capital and are sitting at 36% approval).


Another great quote :
"...The ability to have candid opinions and views in private is very important."

To which Jon Stewart gives a great response that if we could have that right, which we haven't had in a while, that maybe we could negotiate the other stuff.


But really, in this interview Steward really does do a good job of asking strong questions, and getting some articulate answers out of Bolton, not to mention, seems to have mastered the interview techniques of starting out slow so you're only punching him hard in the stomach towards the end. Really a must watch piece.


So to Tucker on Crossfire :: here, now he really hit an important interviewee with hard questions... whatchu got?

Oh no! American democracy is failing!

Apparently, according to CNN... Yes, CNN, not E!, and why they are reporting on this, I don't know, and it hurts my head, but anyway... According to CNN American Idol is becoming a joke because a guy who can't sing that well is doing well and might win.

Good. You shouldn't be able to simply produce "idols," much less musicians... you know, artists? Maybe art is actually a little beyond a silly "democratic" "reality" show?

Thoughts while watching TDS

Screw Stewart / Colbert '08 ... Picture Jon Stewart as Press Secretary instead... that would make press conferences excellent

you either get gitmo or racism

We officially have the first person to plead guilty from Gitmo.

"The guilty plea is sure to be seen by supporters of the administration as an affirmation of its efforts to detain and try terrorism suspects here."


First - yes, because when you make two of his lawyers leave the courtroom, and at first don't have him enter a plea, and give someone a chance to leave a hellhole and he was found guilty of "providing material support to a terrorist organization," and not, ya know, killing Americans, its not a surprise he plead guilty.


But if they plan on pretending this is their flagship guilty case -- can we stop racial profiling yet? He's white! Hello?! Let's hope they follow rules of reason, and only get to pick one ... if this case proves anything (arguable) then it either proves Guantanamo or racial profiling and hating Islamofascists, but not both.

Investigation over Legislation

WaPo writer David Broder whines about "Investigation, not legislation"

Accountability is certainly important, but Democrats must know that people were really voting for action on Iraq, health care, immigration, energy and a few other problems. Investigations are useful, but only legislation on big issues changes lives.

First of all, the piece doesn't really feel like it gets to his point until the last paragraph. Annoying.



But more importantly...

People did vote for the issues he lists, but the bigger problem is lack of trust in one's government. The populace has to trust that their leadership will do something about those issues, and even more so, that they trust them to do something good about those problems. Don't believe me? Corroborating evidence at Kos

So if the Dems feel the need need to clean house, and prove that the rampant corruption is at least slightly better, first, go for it. Its not just that the Dems are going to draft new policy on "health care, immigration, energy and a few other problems," but that they are going do make any policy other than "stay the course in Iraq." Apparently, Republicans were wasting so much time sending emails ranking loyal Bushies and leaking classified information in order to protect shoddy reasoning that they hardly seemed to produce any policy on anything other than Iraq -- and that Iraq policy didn't change for five years.

So, yes, investigation before legislation. We generally have too many bickering laws anyway, lets go with the KISS theory, and actually spend some time cleaning up the Capitol instead.

World Water Day

Today is World Water Day

According to Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, it would cost about $33 billion to get clean water to everyone who needs it for drinking and sanitation.

Interestingly, this is about half the amount of money that is spent on bottled water every year.

The Onion... eh...

Some of the stuff in The Onion is funny, some of it is not funny and some of it is annoying. Their shirt that reads "Stereotypes are a real time saver" are part of the slacker wannabe libretarian wannabe PC backlash mentality that is actually just stupid and pointless. This shirt bothers me because its not that witty, it doesn't point out some novel fact, all still while supporting a mentality that hinders the progress of so many problems our society faces. They're very hit or miss and while some of their stuff garners a smile, others just make me roll my eyes at a dead joke that does more harm than good.

Needless Sexist (?) Repetition

Army recruits are in the peak age range for Hodgkin’s lymphoma. It is the second most common cancer among young men 20-39 years old and the most common among young women of the same age.

(bottom)

Why say 'most common among men age x-y... and most common among women of the same age'.......... rather than saying 'most common among people of age x-y. I know, I know, because of the disbelief in the radical notion that women are both people and can be recruited as soldiers?

Race and Class, Redux

An article apparently from the Chicago Tribune similtaneously argues that race creates completely different Americans and that Blacks aren't sure if Obama 'reflects their interests'.

“In both cases—in the value system and in the case of Biden’s comments—we do have a situation where Americans are trying to talk across the wide chasm that is race,” said Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University... Perceptually, blacks and whites live in vastly different worlds."

and then...

Obama now finds himself needing to bridge racial divides—even among blacks. Given his racial heritage and upbringing in a white household, Obama has prompted skepticism among African-Americans who have questioned whether he has enough in common with them to reflect their interests.

How can you rationally try to say that race separates people, but then that the Black population might not accept Obama because of his background?

Race does not equal ethnicity does not equal culture.
Social construction versus country of origin versus family and community values.

Not interchangeable.

The issue that the article is really trying to write about is classism.

Stereotypes are Stupid [Limiting]

"I think that's true if you're playing basketball or in an office job. That's just how the world is right now."

Yes, now, and hopefully a step towards a better future. Sure looks encouraging.

Klein Sexual Orientation Grid

We were working with this in class, and I thought it would make for an interesting contribution to some discussions that have been going on, as well as just an interesting perspective.

(And yes, it reminds you of Kinsey, but its by F. Klein and Ta. J. Wolf 1985)

Variable	Past	Present	Ideal
Sexual Attraction
Sexual Behavior
Sexual Fantasies
Emotional Preference
Social Preference
Self-Identification
Hetero/Gay Lifestyle

1 = Other gender or heterosexual only
2 = Other gender mostly or heterosexual mostly
3 = Other gender somewhat more or heterosexual some what more
4 = Both genders equally or hetero/lgb (lesbian, gay bisexual) equally
5 = Same gender somewhat more or lgb somewhat more
6 = Same gender mostly or lgb mostly
7 = Same gender only or lgb only

Sexual Attraction : To whom are you sexually attracted? For the present, use the past year as a time frame.
Sexual Behavior : With whom do you have sex?
Sexual Fantasies : When you daydream, masturbate, or fantasize about sexual experiences, with whom do you imagine having sex?
Emotional Preference : With whom do you feel intimate loving and emotional connections?
Social Preference : With whom do you prefer to spend your social time?
Self-Identification : How do you describe your sexual orientation?
Heterosexual / LGB Lifestyle : With which "community" do you identify and spend time?


I think it puts interesting questions and considerations on the table. The numbers don't add up to some super calculus of a person's sexuality, it just servers as a mental evaluation, and a collective acknowledgment that sexuality isn't binary, and doesn't even fall into three categories, nor is it completely static over time.

Food for thought, I suppose...


ps. blogger HTML code sucks, it put all sorts of random breaks in where they shouldn't have been

Why Class Matters and Race Doesn't : College Admissions

In the late 1960s, Arthur Fletcher, created a plan to get federal construction workers to increase their employment of minorities, and in doing so, created a model which today has evolved into affirmative action (1). When created, the model existed as a way to solve a problem in social inequality. Today, arguably in part due to the so called 'Philadelphia Plan', the situation has changed, which means that a new system should be under consideration to better address a different problem. Race based affirmative action policies should be replaced by socio-economic based affirmative action, and I will focus primarily on its implications in the college admissions process. Race is no longer the same social concept it was in the past, while socio-economic status remains, however unfortunately, an important factor in today's social fabric. Therefore, a class rather than racially based system would not only be more fair and equitable, given the modern social structure, but also would be more able to effectively address the problems that persist, both in education and in general inequality.

While reaching back into this nation's history, race may have at many points been considered an important defining characteristic of any given person, that notion is less entrenched and relevant today, for two main reasons. In the past, efforts were made to justify perceived racial differences as pertinent by trying to back these ideas up with science. Modern technologies allowing greater understanding about the human genome has proven a lack of genetic difference between races. This means race, as it exists today, is a social construction. Race only exists because this society acts as if it exists, and any attributes given to any race are only there because any given community believes them to be true, while the differences have no scientific baring.

There is a difference between race and culture. The idea of race relates to a group of people based on physical characteristics. Culture can be related to race, but also can be segmented with a racial group and can span across racial boundaries. Culture encapsulates the values and customs of a group of people, while race is more of a classification based on visual categorization. Therefore, while race only influences an individual because of how society reacts t to its own invented notion, culture affects an individual based on how, where and by whom they were raised. So for example, while there might be a strong cultural influence on someone, that will not be quantified on a college application in the form of a check box asking for race.

While discrimination, or merely assumptions, based on race my still exist in our society, and some may argue that affirmative action exists to address missed opportunities due to racial discrimination, there are other classification and groups that society maintains that do not apply to affirmative action, even though they too can be use d for discrimination. These include gender, religion, and ableism, among others. Therefore, I do not believe that race-based affirmative action seeks to address problems of socially enforced inequalities.
At the same time, socioeconomic status maintains a direct link to an individual's opportunities or lack thereof. A team of researchers, Carnevale and Rose, looking a similar question conducted a survey asking, “What helps and hurts in life? (2)” Of respondents, 83% considered growing up low-income family to be a disadvantage, and 85% believed coming from a low-income school hurts in life. As for a racial breakdown, 78%, 77% and then 71% respectively thought it was a disadvantage in life to grow up in a low-income Black family, Hispanic family and then white family. So while the survey showed that people perceived being up poor an a minority to be more of a disadvantage than being white and a minority, it was by no means by an overwhelming number, and the overall question emphasizes that the bigger problem is coming from a low-income family and low-income school.

Further more, socioeconomic status seems to have a greater effect on college attendance than race does, at least in some instances. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, out of the US Department of Education, approximately 70% of whites 65% of Blacks and 65% of Hispanics attend some form of college by the time they are 24years old. On the other hand, nationwide, about 90% of students from families earning more than $80,000 attend college, compared to only 60% of families earning less than $33,000. That 60% is less than the number of Blacks and Hispanics attending college. These numbers are addressing college totals. Using a tiered system of evaluating colleges according to how 'good' they are from Barrons, Carnevale and Rose compared attendance from each of the the four quartiles of income to these four 'tiers' of colleges. Within the top tier colleges, for example, 74% of attendees are from the top quartile of income, while 9% are from the bottom half, 3% from the bottom quartile, and 6% from the second from the bottom. Those numbers only address the highest tier schools, which should be interesting in its own way, because those schools tend to have the bigger endowments that would allow them to give more financial aid and could afford to admit more lower income students. If one looks at the second tier of schools, 46% of admits come from the top quartile while 25% come from the bottom half, and in the third tier, a third each comes from the top quartile, second quartile and then bottom half.

Some might argue that these students from lower income families and poorer quality high schools are not as ready or as able to perform at higher college levels. By the means that college admissions officers have to evaluate student potential, these low-income students are not under performing. A study used standardized tests scores as a measure of aptitude, which presents its own problems whereas affluent students can buy tutors and practice tests, and lower income students are more often ill-prepared with what the test will even look like. However, that study found that a student from the lowest quartile of income but the highest quartile of test score was just as likely to be admitted to college as a student from the highest income but lowest test score quartile (3). That statistic emphasizes the role socioeconomic status directly plays in college admissions.
Income has a strong impact on a students education and their likelihood to get into college than race . Some may argue that the reason some under performing schools do not receive the funding or other sources of help that would improve their quality of education is because the government or the tax payers are racists and therefore the system is racists and they do not care about those schools. However, I argue that regardless of the reason these schools as a whole are ignored, the factor that impacts the child at the end of the day is that her or his school is located in an area of lower income where the parents cannot afford to easily remedy the inadequacies of their children's public education. That factor will equally impact all children in that school regardless of their race, and regardless of if the reason they school is under performing is because of institutionalized racism, or classism. The impact of a poor school on a child's education and therefore college readiness is greater than the impact of residual racism in society on a given students academic performance. A racial minority student attending a suburban school is going to receive a better education than a white student attending an underfunded, mostly white school in a rural area, or a white student attending a mostly minority school in an urban area. Admissions should be based on academic potential, not on trying apologize for social problems of the past. Therefore, the greater factor to consider is socioeconomic status, rather than race.

As discussed earlier, culture affects a child more so than race does, because culture is more specific to any given student's upbringing. Another factor that plays into college attendance, on top of quality of education and aptitude, is perception of cost of attendance. Again according to a study by the US National Center for Education Statistics, while all families tend to “substantially overestimate” the cost of college tuition, families from lower income tend to do so more (4). This means that students in these schools not only are ill-equipped to apply to colleges and tend to be overlooked, but will discount their own ability to be able to attend. Not helping the problem, a study showed that between 1995 and 2003, grant money for tuition given to higher income students actually increased at a higher rate than money given to lower income students (5). Accepting or maintaining the idea that college is unaffordable and therefore unattainable and not a worthy goal will have a discouraging effect on students who might otherwise push themselves to be getting the better grades, when they are capable. On the other hand, to be raised in a family that may overestimate the cost of college, but can afford it anyway, would be an encouragement throughout a students academic career to have that end goal in sight.

Additionally, the college going mentality is often not present on these high school campuses. In an interview with a high school teacher in south Los Angeles, Mr. Demetrius Holmes said about his school that, “Currently the culture is not a college going culture, teachers and parents have low expectations. (6)” He explained his efforts to increase college visibility at his school to get students to be thinking about college attendance. This is in stark contrast to most higher income schools where the culture is such that college attendance is an assumption. Therefore, the students at the lower income schools are fighting a culture battle on two fronts – at home and at school – and therefore need more assistance and understanding when it comes to college admissions.

While this proposal more effectively helps students who need it, and more directly targets a remedy towards institutional inequalities, it also could benefit the universities. Schools often proclaim their 'commitments to diversity' when it comes to their ideal student body, often referring to race. Harvard issued a statement claiming to be attempting to make their school more affordable to more people, explaining that the are looking for, “widest possible diversity of life experiences and intellectual perspectives. (7)” While 'diversity' often ends up translating into more colorful publicity papers for schools, focusing on socioeconomic, rather than just racial, diversity would have a greater result of a range of students' backgrounds and bringing fresh ideas to the table. Talking in a classroom about classism, income, inequity, takes on a whole new dynamic if students from across the socioeconomic spectrum can compare their experiences. Admitting a more racially diverse, but still somewhat affluent student body does not bring the same variety of upbringing. If schools want to proclaim their diversity is for the purpose of enriching the academic possibilities because of the unique experience each individual student can bring, they should turn their focus towards socioeconomic based affirmative action.



Citations:
(1) Holley, Joe. Washington Post. “Affirmative Action Pioneer Advised GOP Presidents”. 14 Jul 2005 p B1Holley, Joe. Washington Post. “Affirmative Action Pioneer Advised GOP Presidents”. 14 Jul 2005 p B1
(2) Carnevale, Anthony P. Rose, Stephen J. America's Untapped Resource. “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions”. The Century Foundation. 31 MAR 2003
(3) Gladieux, Lawrence E., "Low-Income Student and the Affordability of Higher Education," America's Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education, New York: The Century Foundation Press, 2004, p. 25.
(4) Horrn, Laura J. Chen, Xianglei, Chapman, Chris. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. “Getting Ready to Pay for College: What Students and Their Parents Know About the Cost of College Tuition and What They are Doing to Find Out.” NCES 2003-030. Washington, DC: 2003.
(5) Liu, Nien. “The Rich Get Richer.” www.educatednation.com citing Chicago Tribune. 06 SEPT 2006
(6) Holmes, Demetrius. Personal Unpublished interview. 17 APR 2006
(7) Harvard University Gazette. “Harvard announces new initiative aimed at economic barriers to college.
” Cambridge, MA: 28 FEB 2004