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!
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!
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
