For a second, the cynic in me was immediately suspicious at the commencement of the weeklong coverage of the tenth anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
“That damn sensationalistic, ratings-driven, 24-hour news cycle will pimp anything to its advantage,” I irritatingly thought as I saw coverage on every major network including two children’s stations.
Yet, the truth is that I didn’t want to go back to that day. I didn’t want to remember one of the most sorrowful days I have experienced in my life. I had no desire to conjure up the feelings of helplessness; fear, anger, and uncertainty that I felt as a 19 year-old college student seeing the events of that day unravel as I sat alone for hours on my fake leather couch.
But more than anything, for the memories of those that passed on that day, I didn’t want to spend a week asking myself questions that have no easy answer.
The fact is that September 11, 2001 is symbolic of the quintessential philosophical and spiritual conundrum that I have battled with my entire adult life, “Why does God allow bad things to happen?”
I won’t spend time recreating the imagery that will forever be embedded in the minds and hearts of all who witnessed the events of that day. The planes. The fire. The buildings. The people.
We all remember those things.
However, what I will say is that in the time that has passed after 9/11 where I have experienced personal loss of my own and witnessed senseless loss all around me, my journey to understand the unimaginable begins with the question that I have asked God numerous times and in numerous ways.
“God/Jesus/Holy Spirit…WHAT IN THE SAMUEL L. JACKSON IS GOING ON? Are you there? Do you really exist? Why did this happen? How could this happen? How can you expect us to keep faith in the face of these things?”
Initially, my philosophical mind always takes me back to a story that I read in college named, “The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas,” by Ursula Leguin. This short story, tells of an utopian society that existed with the prerequisite that one soul suffered. All of the citizens within this society, when they came of age, were told of the suffering endured by the one soul and why it was necessary to preserve their way of life. Similarly, in some ways, I feel as if the safety that we have appreciated in the aftermath of that day were paid for by the lives of those who perished in the towers and in the subsequent wars.
But my own philosophical beliefs only take me so far. So I turn back to God and again ask, “Why?”
Then I am reminded of the conversation that God had with Job – a faultless man – who had lost everything dear to him as a test of his faith. Job, finally at his breaking point asked God why he had allowed him to suffer such great loss, and God responded with the following question:
“Where were you when I laid the Earth’s Foundation?” (Job 28, v4)
As a child, I was always uncomfortable with this reply as it seemed to be very “Suge Knight-like” of God. A cold response – it appeared to lack the compassion, grace, and mercy that I had come to consider as attributes of God. It wasn’t until I became an adult and experienced my own loss that I understood what God was conveying to Job. Trust is what God seeks from us – even in our darkest of hours.
As people of faith, our existence rests on the belief of a higher power that maintains perfect order in a world of chaos. Often unequipped to sort out the matters of our own lives, we persistently aim to trust that there is a higher power that can maintain fairness, peace, joy, and righteousness in the world in ways that we, individually nor collectively, cannot. It is this persistent fight to actively choose faith, to actively believe in the “substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen” in spite of the evil that often seems so pervasive around us, which encapsulate the very reason why we exist. Like many of have come before us and have suffered tremendously, faith is rarely easy. It constantly requires of us things that we would normally choose not to give.
I believe that the perfection of our faith is the sole purpose of our existence.
I am “one of those” Christians who believes that most of us who are people of faith, whatever you deem your faith to be, are praying to the same God. I believe that whether you live to enjoy eternity in Heaven, or to live in Paradise with 72 virgins, or to have peace in Nirvana, that God ultimately gives us the desires of our souls as long as we live in accordance with his will.
Because of this belief, I trust that each of the souls that perished on that faithful day, ten years ago, are in a much better place.
Some are enjoying the views on the beaches of an endless shore.
Some are resting in the peace of a never-ending white light.
Some may have reentered into our lives through the life of a newborn child.
I simply trust with all of my heart, that on the anniversary of that day – there is no need to remember the suffering.
Like many who senselessly passed from this Earth before September 11, 2001 and the many that have passed afterwards, the best way to pay tribute to the lives of those that we have lost is to live. Live courageously. Live fearlessly. Live passionately. Live faithfully.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Thursday, April 8, 2010
TRACKING MURDERS IN CHICAGO: IF NOT NOW THEN WHEN? IF NOT US THEN WHO?
Can I be blunt?
I love Black Chicago and I hate Black Chicago.
Growing up...I lived in the intersection of the haves and the have-nots. I lived one block west of King Drive and two blocks north of 79th on the southside of the city. Although conventional wisdom would have you think that I lived in the "HOOD" the fact is that I lived on an uber-quiet block filled with bungalows owned by doctors, lawyers, teachers, and policemen. This 'utopia in the hood' provided me with an interesting perspective on life -where within my personal realm of reality I saw that anything was possible but early on I had to consider the kids just on the other side of King Drive that, for some reason beyond my understanding at the time, had a far more difficult mountain to climb to achieve their dreams.
But irregardless of where you start, Chicago has always represented a place where Blacks can accomplish things that were inconceivable in any other location in the world. To this day, the Black middle and upper-middle class is a large-yet-paradoxically small subset of the City's population that is highly accomplished, highly exclusive, but unfortunately becoming highly irrelevant.
…..Yes. Irrelevant.
The "new" upper-middle class of Black Chicago has become so consumed with "identifiers" of class, status, privilege, and wealth that WE have allowed kids to die in our schools, on our streets, and in our neighborhoods – merely recognizing the tragedy of it all when we read the “Murder-Tracker” section in Redeye on our way to work. We see “them” – the victims of these senseless crimes – as the underclass and/or people who are unlike “us”….but this disconnect will prove to feed the growth of crime and poverty within our community.
We will create a collaboration of doctors, investors, and lawyers to throw a party but not to start a foundation to help at-risk kids. We will throw parties in multiple cities at a time but not arrange mentorship opportunities in multiple schools in one city? We will combine resources to rent out party halls but not leverage each others resources to help many of our younger brothers and sisters who will likely not live to see the age of 21.
Is this really what we want our legacy to be?
In Illinois, Black males consist of only 2 percent of all college graduates but over 60 percent of all new inmates per year.
This year, there have been over 125 murders in Chicago, including 28 children in Chicago Public Schools, and 38 murders in the month of May alone.
In the grand scheme of things, we are literally a dying breed....and WE are not doing anything about it.
I’m willing to do SOMETHING….are you?
Murder Tracker-
http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/red-chicagomurders-map,0,2276.story
I love Black Chicago and I hate Black Chicago.
Growing up...I lived in the intersection of the haves and the have-nots. I lived one block west of King Drive and two blocks north of 79th on the southside of the city. Although conventional wisdom would have you think that I lived in the "HOOD" the fact is that I lived on an uber-quiet block filled with bungalows owned by doctors, lawyers, teachers, and policemen. This 'utopia in the hood' provided me with an interesting perspective on life -where within my personal realm of reality I saw that anything was possible but early on I had to consider the kids just on the other side of King Drive that, for some reason beyond my understanding at the time, had a far more difficult mountain to climb to achieve their dreams.
But irregardless of where you start, Chicago has always represented a place where Blacks can accomplish things that were inconceivable in any other location in the world. To this day, the Black middle and upper-middle class is a large-yet-paradoxically small subset of the City's population that is highly accomplished, highly exclusive, but unfortunately becoming highly irrelevant.
…..Yes. Irrelevant.
The "new" upper-middle class of Black Chicago has become so consumed with "identifiers" of class, status, privilege, and wealth that WE have allowed kids to die in our schools, on our streets, and in our neighborhoods – merely recognizing the tragedy of it all when we read the “Murder-Tracker” section in Redeye on our way to work. We see “them” – the victims of these senseless crimes – as the underclass and/or people who are unlike “us”….but this disconnect will prove to feed the growth of crime and poverty within our community.
We will create a collaboration of doctors, investors, and lawyers to throw a party but not to start a foundation to help at-risk kids. We will throw parties in multiple cities at a time but not arrange mentorship opportunities in multiple schools in one city? We will combine resources to rent out party halls but not leverage each others resources to help many of our younger brothers and sisters who will likely not live to see the age of 21.
Is this really what we want our legacy to be?
In Illinois, Black males consist of only 2 percent of all college graduates but over 60 percent of all new inmates per year.
This year, there have been over 125 murders in Chicago, including 28 children in Chicago Public Schools, and 38 murders in the month of May alone.
In the grand scheme of things, we are literally a dying breed....and WE are not doing anything about it.
I’m willing to do SOMETHING….are you?
Murder Tracker-
http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/red-chicagomurders-map,0,2276.story
(Not) Shocked, Appalled, Disgusted, and Dismayed…
As a Clinton supporter turned Clinton disappointee, turned Obama supporter turned reconciled Democrat, I have made a tremendous effort to take this presidential campaign in small bite pieces – Huffingtonpost for 15 minutes a day, Drudge Report for 10 minutes to and from work; Good Morning America from 7:00 – 7:30am (because I love Diane, Robin, and Chris) and Politico.com before I go to bed. Before today, my strategy had been successful but at 9:40 am a news alert sent to my Blackberry sent me into a fit of severe disgust….
“John McCain to taps Sarah Pilan for VP”
After several conversations with other amateur political pundits about the impact of McCain’s decision to pick “Woman X”, one thing became increasingly and apparently clear: This election will show us, as Americans, how much we are willing to allow our divisions blind us from solving the issues that affect us.
Whether you are Black or White, Latino or Asian, Rich or Poor – our failing economy will come to affect each of us in some way. Our failing schools will affect the viability of our workforce and hence productivity of our companies; And America’s loss of competiveness and respect around the world will become painfully clear that next time you try to exchange the dollar for the Euro, the Yen, or even the Canadian dollar.
After hearing news of McCain’s VP choice, I whispered “Jacka**” to myself and here is why…
McCain displayed a deep lack of integrity, connection, and understanding of the very people that he tried so manipulatively to court. It is my hope and assumption that part of the frustration of Hillary’s most stringent supporters is that there is a feeling of “IF NOT HILLARY THAN WHO?” If Hillary Clinton, who is ivy-league educated and has the political experience and collateral to move issues to the forefront of the US Congress and into the purview of the American people can’t be elected President, then what woman can be elected? This is logical and understandable argument and what is significant is that it is not be based on the point that Hillary is just a woman, but “a strong woman and a strong candidate.” One who deserving and rightfully made 18,000,000 cracks in the highest glass ceiling in the land.
However, what McCain’s choice shows is that he cares less about the issues, cares little about moving this country forward more united than divided – he cares about capitalizing on the divisions that have disabled this country from moving forward – all for his own political gain. Understandably, he tried to court Hillary’s most disgruntled voters – but did so in the cheapest way possible - -He did not care to find the right woman for the job – just any woman.
So, for all you PUMAs left out there – considering for a second that maybe the McCain-Pilan is the way for you to go…let me help to inform your decision about the type of woman she is …
A Crony Woman…
(CNN) She is under investigation for her firing of a state official, Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. She has been instructed to hand over documents and recordings of telephone conversations as part of the probe, which grew out of allegations she sacked Monegan for refusing to fire her former brother-in-law from the state police.
A Good Ole’ Fashioned “Oil-Girl”
(CNN) She is known for her support of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a position McCain opposes but many grass-roots Republicans support.
(CNN) She is married to Todd Palin, an oil production operator on Alaska's North Slope
A Trigger-Happy Woman (Literally)
Sarah Palin is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association
A Random Woman
As a vice-presidential candidate for the highest position in the land, it’s terribly embarrassing when your resume is so shallow that reporters begin to list out your high-school accomplishments (she is a basketball champion!) and information about your kids (she has four) to validate the reason that they have to write about you.
“John McCain to taps Sarah Pilan for VP”
After several conversations with other amateur political pundits about the impact of McCain’s decision to pick “Woman X”, one thing became increasingly and apparently clear: This election will show us, as Americans, how much we are willing to allow our divisions blind us from solving the issues that affect us.
Whether you are Black or White, Latino or Asian, Rich or Poor – our failing economy will come to affect each of us in some way. Our failing schools will affect the viability of our workforce and hence productivity of our companies; And America’s loss of competiveness and respect around the world will become painfully clear that next time you try to exchange the dollar for the Euro, the Yen, or even the Canadian dollar.
After hearing news of McCain’s VP choice, I whispered “Jacka**” to myself and here is why…
McCain displayed a deep lack of integrity, connection, and understanding of the very people that he tried so manipulatively to court. It is my hope and assumption that part of the frustration of Hillary’s most stringent supporters is that there is a feeling of “IF NOT HILLARY THAN WHO?” If Hillary Clinton, who is ivy-league educated and has the political experience and collateral to move issues to the forefront of the US Congress and into the purview of the American people can’t be elected President, then what woman can be elected? This is logical and understandable argument and what is significant is that it is not be based on the point that Hillary is just a woman, but “a strong woman and a strong candidate.” One who deserving and rightfully made 18,000,000 cracks in the highest glass ceiling in the land.
However, what McCain’s choice shows is that he cares less about the issues, cares little about moving this country forward more united than divided – he cares about capitalizing on the divisions that have disabled this country from moving forward – all for his own political gain. Understandably, he tried to court Hillary’s most disgruntled voters – but did so in the cheapest way possible - -He did not care to find the right woman for the job – just any woman.
So, for all you PUMAs left out there – considering for a second that maybe the McCain-Pilan is the way for you to go…let me help to inform your decision about the type of woman she is …
A Crony Woman…
(CNN) She is under investigation for her firing of a state official, Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. She has been instructed to hand over documents and recordings of telephone conversations as part of the probe, which grew out of allegations she sacked Monegan for refusing to fire her former brother-in-law from the state police.
A Good Ole’ Fashioned “Oil-Girl”
(CNN) She is known for her support of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a position McCain opposes but many grass-roots Republicans support.
(CNN) She is married to Todd Palin, an oil production operator on Alaska's North Slope
A Trigger-Happy Woman (Literally)
Sarah Palin is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association
A Random Woman
As a vice-presidential candidate for the highest position in the land, it’s terribly embarrassing when your resume is so shallow that reporters begin to list out your high-school accomplishments (she is a basketball champion!) and information about your kids (she has four) to validate the reason that they have to write about you.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Black Boys and Public Education: Special Ed, Social Promotion, and Cultural Bias
As discussed in last week’s class, the achievement gap between Blacks and Whites consistently indicates disparities in academic outcomes in regards to race in the US. These differences in academic performance are argued by many to justify many employers hiring of White applicants over Blacks. This rationale supports that hiring discrimination stems not from prejudice but from mere asymmetries in qualifications between the two groups. In the event that this argument is true, one must – in exercising good policy – look to question, answer and remedy possible ways in which this phenomenon might be reversed. Though various studies prove that the achievement gap is continuously decreasing for Black females when given equal academic resources, the gap for Black men continues to remain vast over the course of various treatments. The purpose of this paper is to discuss various reasons that could account for poor academic achievement in Black men.
In recent times, many social scientists have given attention to the propensity of teachers and administrators to put Black men in Special Education classes at astronomically higher rates than their female and white counterparts. As noted in a 2005 report of the National Association for the Education of African American Students with Disabilities, in many urban areas – at any given time, two-thirds of the students in special education classes are Black and likely to be male. As displayed in the frustration of parents at a rally at a Maryland School Board meeting in 2005, many teachers prematurely transfer Black males to special education classes as a response to behavior or emotional problems. As a consequence, academically capable Black students’ intellectual growth becomes stunted while their behavioral and emotional issues continue to worsen.
Even in Chicago, the process of transferring problematic children to special education classes has sparked noteworthy attention. More specifically, within the Chicago Public Schools, criticism has been raised in the system’s use of social promotion of Black males as early as the third grade level. In effect, the public school system’s inability or lack of desire to adequately educate young Black boys “undermines student’s [life chances] when they fail to develop critical study and job-related skills.”
Oftentimes, an examination of academic outcomes for Black males brings criticism to the “culture” of African-American families who are deemed as valuing education far less than their White counterparts. While much research has gone into measuring the effects of habitual tendencies within Black households as they relate to educational performance, many remain skeptical in saying definitively that African-Americans “value” education less than Whites. However, what has recently been discovered of equal importance is the “culture” of the school and mainstream society’s perception of academic potential amongst Black male youth. On February 1, 2007, The Chicago Tribune published an article, “Young Blacks Feel Hindered” where a University of Chicago study [facilitated by Kathy Cohen] revealed that young Black people “remain alienated and pessimistic about their place in society.” The survey further revealed that students do not believe that racism will end in their lifetime and feel that it hinders their advancement leading many of the nation’s leaders to not care about them.
The feeling of cultural displacement amongst Black males was further examined in The Journal News, a newspaper serving the Westchester, New York and White Plains area. In an article entitled, “Racism still seen as a serious obstacle for Black males in America,” research from the University of Chicago revealed that 61 percent of Black teens and young adults said they believed discrimination made it harder for young blacks to get ahead. A separate survey from the Opinion Research Corp revealed similarly that 49 percent of young Blacks said that racism is still “a very serious problem.”
In examining the potential reasons that result in higher disparities in academic achievement between Blacks and Whites, one must be sensitive to the underlying cultural biases that may stunt overall life chances of Black males. Because of a perception of low life potential in the earliest stages of their academic life, these individuals are merely passed along through the education system with minimal substantive attention given to social and behavioral problems that could potentially be overcame with time and effort. As a result, many young Black males reach a proverbial “point of no return” where incentives to perform academically do not appear to be worth their time.
In recent times, many social scientists have given attention to the propensity of teachers and administrators to put Black men in Special Education classes at astronomically higher rates than their female and white counterparts. As noted in a 2005 report of the National Association for the Education of African American Students with Disabilities, in many urban areas – at any given time, two-thirds of the students in special education classes are Black and likely to be male. As displayed in the frustration of parents at a rally at a Maryland School Board meeting in 2005, many teachers prematurely transfer Black males to special education classes as a response to behavior or emotional problems. As a consequence, academically capable Black students’ intellectual growth becomes stunted while their behavioral and emotional issues continue to worsen.
Even in Chicago, the process of transferring problematic children to special education classes has sparked noteworthy attention. More specifically, within the Chicago Public Schools, criticism has been raised in the system’s use of social promotion of Black males as early as the third grade level. In effect, the public school system’s inability or lack of desire to adequately educate young Black boys “undermines student’s [life chances] when they fail to develop critical study and job-related skills.”
Oftentimes, an examination of academic outcomes for Black males brings criticism to the “culture” of African-American families who are deemed as valuing education far less than their White counterparts. While much research has gone into measuring the effects of habitual tendencies within Black households as they relate to educational performance, many remain skeptical in saying definitively that African-Americans “value” education less than Whites. However, what has recently been discovered of equal importance is the “culture” of the school and mainstream society’s perception of academic potential amongst Black male youth. On February 1, 2007, The Chicago Tribune published an article, “Young Blacks Feel Hindered” where a University of Chicago study [facilitated by Kathy Cohen] revealed that young Black people “remain alienated and pessimistic about their place in society.” The survey further revealed that students do not believe that racism will end in their lifetime and feel that it hinders their advancement leading many of the nation’s leaders to not care about them.
The feeling of cultural displacement amongst Black males was further examined in The Journal News, a newspaper serving the Westchester, New York and White Plains area. In an article entitled, “Racism still seen as a serious obstacle for Black males in America,” research from the University of Chicago revealed that 61 percent of Black teens and young adults said they believed discrimination made it harder for young blacks to get ahead. A separate survey from the Opinion Research Corp revealed similarly that 49 percent of young Blacks said that racism is still “a very serious problem.”
In examining the potential reasons that result in higher disparities in academic achievement between Blacks and Whites, one must be sensitive to the underlying cultural biases that may stunt overall life chances of Black males. Because of a perception of low life potential in the earliest stages of their academic life, these individuals are merely passed along through the education system with minimal substantive attention given to social and behavioral problems that could potentially be overcame with time and effort. As a result, many young Black males reach a proverbial “point of no return” where incentives to perform academically do not appear to be worth their time.
Rock the Vote 2008: be informed...or watch from the sidelines
Whether you love or hate politics, it is difficult to ignore the excitement that has surrounded the 2008 Presidential Election. Over the course of 18 months, seventeen politicians across the ideological spectrum fought to have their ideas regarding the fate of America heard, and finally – after the longest primary election season in U.S. history - only two contenders remain. Now, two men – Barack Obama and John McCain – have been charged with the tasks of…..
…..reuniting America, halting a recession, providing universal healthcare, fixing a dysfunctional immigration system, protecting America from terrorism, simplifying the most complicated tax code in the developed world, saving social security, reversing global warming, as well as figuring out what do regarding Iraq, the mortgage crisis, the world food shortage, increasing violence in urban cities,
and Americans being ticked off that gas is expected to reach $8 a gallon in the next two years.
So what’s a voter to do? Be informed and let your voice be heard.
During the upcoming months, the primary election season is sure to be filled with debates, commercials, emails, you-tube videos, and propaganda trying to convince voters that one candidate is better than the other. While many of these will be informative, and some may be humorous, there are bound to be smear campaigns based in fear, ignorance, and manipulation. While we have seen the implications of these negative tactics from previous campaigns (ie.-the increasing polarization between parties and the inability of politicians to development effective public policy), we must take it upon ourselves to inform our decision of whom we will pick to become the next President of the United States.
To help you along the way, here is an oversimplified cheat sheet of where the candidates stand on the issues that will effect the next generation of leaders, movers, and shakers (yes, I am talking about YOU)...
On Iraq*:
McCain: Voted for the use of military force in Iraq. Supported Bush veto of war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Was an early proponent of sending additional American troops to Iraq. Believes that the U.S. must have a sustained presence in Iraq to ensure the region does not fall back into safe haven for terrorists.
Obama: Opposed the use of military force in Iraq. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Supports phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Opposed Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. Supports the withdrawal of troops from Iraq immediately, and under the plan he introduced in January 2007, the US would have begun withdrawing forces engaged in combat operations on May 1, 2007. Believes the withdrawal of troops is the best leverage the US has to press the Iraqi political leaders to make the political compromises necessary to end their civil war.
On the Economy++:
McCain: Wants to ensure that money spent by Congress, and contributed by taxpayers, is used on legitimate national priorities, as opposed to special interest earmarks. Believes the federal government must respect the bottom line. Believes the practice of excessive borrowing and deficit spending in Washington must stop.
Obama: Wants to make strategic, long-term investments into American infrastructure to create more high-wage jobs. Plans to expand federal funding for basic research, make the tax credit for research and development permanent, and expand the deployment of broadband technology, so that businesses can invest in innovation and create high-paying, secure jobs. Has stated that he will make investments in education, training, and workforce development so that Americans can leverage entrepreneurialism to create new high-wage jobs and prosper in a world economy. Wants to fight against trade agreements that undermine American competitiveness and use trade as a tool to grow American jobs. Will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) that fail to live up to those important benchmarks.
On Healthcare++:
McCain: Believes health care reform must put individuals and families, not government, at the center of the health care system. Wants to provide greater access to high-quality health care and end spiraling costs. Believes that the road to healthcare reform should not be a government-controlled process. Has stated that the best way expand access and controls costs, without hurting the quality of our health care, is to harness competition to offer more affordable insurance options for as many Americans as possible.
Obama: Believes that the benefits of the American health care system come at a price that an increasing number of individuals and families, employers and employees, and public and private providers cannot afford. Has developed an official healthcare plan which is estimated to save a typical American family up to $2,500 every year on premiums.
On Immigration*:
McCain: Co-sponsored Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
Obama: Supported Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
On Energy and Oil++:
McCain: Promotes energy efficiency by using improved technology and practicing sensible habits in American homes, businesses and automobiles. Believes that smart grid technology can help homeowners and businesses lower their energy use, and breakthroughs in high tech materials can greatly improve fuel efficiency in our oil-dependent transportation sector.
Obama: Supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce dependence on foreign oil and nonrenewable, polluting sources of energy. Plans to dramatically increase federal investment in advanced clean-energy technologies and energy efficiency.
Taxes*:
McCain: Voted against 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cut laws, but later voted in favor of extending tax cuts through 2010.
Obama: Opposed extending 2003 Bush tax cut law through 2010. Supports eliminating marriage penalty and extending child tax credit. Supports scaling back capital gains and dividends tax cuts and re-examining tax benefits for the top one percent of earners.
On “sensitive topics”:
Same-sex marriage*:
McCain: Supports definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but opposes a constitutional amendment banning same sex-marriage. Belives that individual states should decide the issue. Says a federal marriage ban might be appropriate if courts overturned state marriage laws. Supports legal benefits for same-sex partners.
Obama: Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Supports civil unions.
Abortion*:
McCain: Opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother.
Obama: Supports abortion rights.
On the things that really matter:
Favorite Food#:
McCain: Baby-back ribs
Obama: Chili
Hidden Talent#:
McCain: Barbeque grill chef
Obama: Playing Poker
Music on IPOD:
McCain: Doesn’t have a computer, therefore can’t upload music.
Obama+: Jay-Z; Bob Dylan; Sheryl Crow; Stevie Wonder; Elton John; Howlin’ Wolf; Yo-Yo Mama; Bruce Springstein
Pimped out ride#:
McCain: Cadillac CTS
Obama: Ford Escape Hybrid
Sources:
* - CNN; Election Center 2008; Candidate Profiles
# - ABC News; Meet the Candidates
+ - NDTV.com’; “What’s on Obama’s ipod?” June 26, 2008
++ - Nationalplatforms.com; Presidential Candidate Profiles and the Washingtonpost.com
…..reuniting America, halting a recession, providing universal healthcare, fixing a dysfunctional immigration system, protecting America from terrorism, simplifying the most complicated tax code in the developed world, saving social security, reversing global warming, as well as figuring out what do regarding Iraq, the mortgage crisis, the world food shortage, increasing violence in urban cities,
and Americans being ticked off that gas is expected to reach $8 a gallon in the next two years.
So what’s a voter to do? Be informed and let your voice be heard.
During the upcoming months, the primary election season is sure to be filled with debates, commercials, emails, you-tube videos, and propaganda trying to convince voters that one candidate is better than the other. While many of these will be informative, and some may be humorous, there are bound to be smear campaigns based in fear, ignorance, and manipulation. While we have seen the implications of these negative tactics from previous campaigns (ie.-the increasing polarization between parties and the inability of politicians to development effective public policy), we must take it upon ourselves to inform our decision of whom we will pick to become the next President of the United States.
To help you along the way, here is an oversimplified cheat sheet of where the candidates stand on the issues that will effect the next generation of leaders, movers, and shakers (yes, I am talking about YOU)...
On Iraq*:
McCain: Voted for the use of military force in Iraq. Supported Bush veto of war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Was an early proponent of sending additional American troops to Iraq. Believes that the U.S. must have a sustained presence in Iraq to ensure the region does not fall back into safe haven for terrorists.
Obama: Opposed the use of military force in Iraq. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Supports phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Opposed Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. Supports the withdrawal of troops from Iraq immediately, and under the plan he introduced in January 2007, the US would have begun withdrawing forces engaged in combat operations on May 1, 2007. Believes the withdrawal of troops is the best leverage the US has to press the Iraqi political leaders to make the political compromises necessary to end their civil war.
On the Economy++:
McCain: Wants to ensure that money spent by Congress, and contributed by taxpayers, is used on legitimate national priorities, as opposed to special interest earmarks. Believes the federal government must respect the bottom line. Believes the practice of excessive borrowing and deficit spending in Washington must stop.
Obama: Wants to make strategic, long-term investments into American infrastructure to create more high-wage jobs. Plans to expand federal funding for basic research, make the tax credit for research and development permanent, and expand the deployment of broadband technology, so that businesses can invest in innovation and create high-paying, secure jobs. Has stated that he will make investments in education, training, and workforce development so that Americans can leverage entrepreneurialism to create new high-wage jobs and prosper in a world economy. Wants to fight against trade agreements that undermine American competitiveness and use trade as a tool to grow American jobs. Will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) that fail to live up to those important benchmarks.
On Healthcare++:
McCain: Believes health care reform must put individuals and families, not government, at the center of the health care system. Wants to provide greater access to high-quality health care and end spiraling costs. Believes that the road to healthcare reform should not be a government-controlled process. Has stated that the best way expand access and controls costs, without hurting the quality of our health care, is to harness competition to offer more affordable insurance options for as many Americans as possible.
Obama: Believes that the benefits of the American health care system come at a price that an increasing number of individuals and families, employers and employees, and public and private providers cannot afford. Has developed an official healthcare plan which is estimated to save a typical American family up to $2,500 every year on premiums.
On Immigration*:
McCain: Co-sponsored Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
Obama: Supported Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
On Energy and Oil++:
McCain: Promotes energy efficiency by using improved technology and practicing sensible habits in American homes, businesses and automobiles. Believes that smart grid technology can help homeowners and businesses lower their energy use, and breakthroughs in high tech materials can greatly improve fuel efficiency in our oil-dependent transportation sector.
Obama: Supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce dependence on foreign oil and nonrenewable, polluting sources of energy. Plans to dramatically increase federal investment in advanced clean-energy technologies and energy efficiency.
Taxes*:
McCain: Voted against 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cut laws, but later voted in favor of extending tax cuts through 2010.
Obama: Opposed extending 2003 Bush tax cut law through 2010. Supports eliminating marriage penalty and extending child tax credit. Supports scaling back capital gains and dividends tax cuts and re-examining tax benefits for the top one percent of earners.
On “sensitive topics”:
Same-sex marriage*:
McCain: Supports definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but opposes a constitutional amendment banning same sex-marriage. Belives that individual states should decide the issue. Says a federal marriage ban might be appropriate if courts overturned state marriage laws. Supports legal benefits for same-sex partners.
Obama: Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Supports civil unions.
Abortion*:
McCain: Opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother.
Obama: Supports abortion rights.
On the things that really matter:
Favorite Food#:
McCain: Baby-back ribs
Obama: Chili
Hidden Talent#:
McCain: Barbeque grill chef
Obama: Playing Poker
Music on IPOD:
McCain: Doesn’t have a computer, therefore can’t upload music.
Obama+: Jay-Z; Bob Dylan; Sheryl Crow; Stevie Wonder; Elton John; Howlin’ Wolf; Yo-Yo Mama; Bruce Springstein
Pimped out ride#:
McCain: Cadillac CTS
Obama: Ford Escape Hybrid
Sources:
* - CNN; Election Center 2008; Candidate Profiles
# - ABC News; Meet the Candidates
+ - NDTV.com’; “What’s on Obama’s ipod?” June 26, 2008
++ - Nationalplatforms.com; Presidential Candidate Profiles and the Washingtonpost.com
Obama versus H(B)ill: What's a southsider to do?
In the multitude of discussions that I have had about Barack and Hillary, I am always surprised at the large degree of simplicity in which people choose who they will vote for. Universal healthcare, economic stimulus plans usually don't matter, instead it always comes down to very simple points; "Kirstin, countries in the Middle East won't respect a female President" or "Hillary will change things cause she is a female" are essentially the two summarizing points." For that reason, going into Super Tuesday (Feb 5th) I felt that as Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Females, and Men living in the calamitous circumstances in which the US now finds itself, we owe it to ourselves to go into our respective primaries with a "smig" more political savvy understanding the very real implications that our vote will have on our lives over the next 4 years.
In no way am I trying to belittle the voting preferences of anyone that I know, the first thing that any Political Science class teaches you is that people are politically socialized by their families first, the associates second, their school and/or church third, and life experiences forth. Which is to say that whoever you are voting for is likely the same person that you would have voted for when you were 4 years old, per your realization that you are a Republican or a Democrat, Liberal or a Moderate, from your parent’s conversations at the breakfast table. Sorry, I digressed...
...As far as the female versus male debate...
1.) Don't believe that just because H(B)ill Clinton has breasts that she will take a softer approach to foreign policy or hesitate in throwing Bombs over Baghdad. Her voting record shows that she is willing to bomb a country with the best of them and depending on your foreign-policy preference, only you can decide whether that is a good or a bad thing. In all, the assumption that Clinton will be more diplomatic by virtue of her anatomy is probably missing the mark.
2.) Although the President sets foreign policy, it is not necessary for a President to be the face of foreign policy. This is why there is a Secretary of State. Even with the foolishness of the "Coalition of Willing" that was derived after 9/11, Condi has been the face of foreign policy for the totality of Bush's term. Though Bill Clinton took a more active role in foreign affairs during his presidency, during the debacle of "Monica Lewinsky" Madeleine Albright stepped up and maintained the U.S.'s foreign policy presence during Clinton's impeachment trials. This is all to say that the foreign powers of the world have grown more than accustomed to dealing with a female figure of state and will likely receive a female President with the same respect, in the even that she chooses to play an active role in foreign policy.
...Political Will versus Political Capital...
Change versus Experience. Although this is the one element of each candidate's campaign that they truly can not change, it is probably by far one of the most important. The truth is, we still live in a painfully divisive country, and in order to move policy forward, regardless of how great it sounds, a politician needs political capital to harness votes from his or her party as well as across party lines. 30 years of the Clinton machine has enabled H(B)ill to ascertain a lot of political capital, savvy, and knowledge that allows for her to have the clout to move the policies in the direction that should would like them to go. However, part of her savvy means that she will only fight battles that she knows that she can win, which are probably not the most important battles for the average American. Enter Barack Obama: His ambition to inspire people across party lines in a good indicator that he is willing to be unconventional and push for those issues that truly matter to the average American. This alone sets him apart all of the Presidents that we have seen since RFK. However, the million dollar question and the gamble for voters is whether he will be able to move HOPE into ACTION. The answer to that is 50% out of his hands. Is the rest of the country really ready to unite? Or will Republicans stonewall his efforts? Noticing that the Republican candidates have done little to begin to court independents or moderate democrats should make Obama very suspicious of whether a united country or a united government is possible.
More of the same ole' same ole....a fast-forward version of their policies:
Healthcare: Obama - proposes subsidies to bring down the overall cost of health insurance (opt-in). Benefits everyone with lower premiums; however people who choose not to pay can still receive medical services at the cost of those who do pay.
H(B)ill - mandated universal healthcare (everyone pays, everyone is covered).
Foreign Affairs: Obama - prefers using diplomatic channels as a first option. Aims to meet with five leaders of hostile countries to bridge foreign relations in the first 100 days (I think) of his Presidency.
H(B)ill: Shoot first, ask questions last.
Taxes: Obama: Wants to roll back the tax breaks on people earning $250K/year. Roll back corporate tax loops.
Clinton: Wants to roll back tax breaks on people earning $250K/year. No roll-backs on corporate tax breaks. Instead wants to shore-up Medicaid tax breaks when no services are rendered and to make the healthcare system more efficient (merging patients’ records into an electronic system will save $77 billion/year).
Immigration and Jobs: Obama: (Unclear plan) wants to first improve the economy, fix infrastructure and increase investment (like education in poor areas and inner cities) and everyone comes out ahead - poor Blacks, undocumented citizens, poor Whites, etc.
Clinton: Believes that the exploitation of illegal immigrants does drive down wages. Wants to tighten borders, crack down on employers, and do more to help Mexico create jobs in Mexico. Aims to register illegals deport criminals, will give you a path to citizenship (pay back taxes, pay a fine, wait in line, learn English).
Iraq: Obama: Wants to withdraw a vast majority of troops in his first 60 days.
Clinton: Wants to withdraw most troops in the same timeframe, but also wants to keep some there to protect ambassadors, Iraqi translators, and allied forces.
So that’s it. Be informed. Go Vote.
In no way am I trying to belittle the voting preferences of anyone that I know, the first thing that any Political Science class teaches you is that people are politically socialized by their families first, the associates second, their school and/or church third, and life experiences forth. Which is to say that whoever you are voting for is likely the same person that you would have voted for when you were 4 years old, per your realization that you are a Republican or a Democrat, Liberal or a Moderate, from your parent’s conversations at the breakfast table. Sorry, I digressed...
...As far as the female versus male debate...
1.) Don't believe that just because H(B)ill Clinton has breasts that she will take a softer approach to foreign policy or hesitate in throwing Bombs over Baghdad. Her voting record shows that she is willing to bomb a country with the best of them and depending on your foreign-policy preference, only you can decide whether that is a good or a bad thing. In all, the assumption that Clinton will be more diplomatic by virtue of her anatomy is probably missing the mark.
2.) Although the President sets foreign policy, it is not necessary for a President to be the face of foreign policy. This is why there is a Secretary of State. Even with the foolishness of the "Coalition of Willing" that was derived after 9/11, Condi has been the face of foreign policy for the totality of Bush's term. Though Bill Clinton took a more active role in foreign affairs during his presidency, during the debacle of "Monica Lewinsky" Madeleine Albright stepped up and maintained the U.S.'s foreign policy presence during Clinton's impeachment trials. This is all to say that the foreign powers of the world have grown more than accustomed to dealing with a female figure of state and will likely receive a female President with the same respect, in the even that she chooses to play an active role in foreign policy.
...Political Will versus Political Capital...
Change versus Experience. Although this is the one element of each candidate's campaign that they truly can not change, it is probably by far one of the most important. The truth is, we still live in a painfully divisive country, and in order to move policy forward, regardless of how great it sounds, a politician needs political capital to harness votes from his or her party as well as across party lines. 30 years of the Clinton machine has enabled H(B)ill to ascertain a lot of political capital, savvy, and knowledge that allows for her to have the clout to move the policies in the direction that should would like them to go. However, part of her savvy means that she will only fight battles that she knows that she can win, which are probably not the most important battles for the average American. Enter Barack Obama: His ambition to inspire people across party lines in a good indicator that he is willing to be unconventional and push for those issues that truly matter to the average American. This alone sets him apart all of the Presidents that we have seen since RFK. However, the million dollar question and the gamble for voters is whether he will be able to move HOPE into ACTION. The answer to that is 50% out of his hands. Is the rest of the country really ready to unite? Or will Republicans stonewall his efforts? Noticing that the Republican candidates have done little to begin to court independents or moderate democrats should make Obama very suspicious of whether a united country or a united government is possible.
More of the same ole' same ole....a fast-forward version of their policies:
Healthcare: Obama - proposes subsidies to bring down the overall cost of health insurance (opt-in). Benefits everyone with lower premiums; however people who choose not to pay can still receive medical services at the cost of those who do pay.
H(B)ill - mandated universal healthcare (everyone pays, everyone is covered).
Foreign Affairs: Obama - prefers using diplomatic channels as a first option. Aims to meet with five leaders of hostile countries to bridge foreign relations in the first 100 days (I think) of his Presidency.
H(B)ill: Shoot first, ask questions last.
Taxes: Obama: Wants to roll back the tax breaks on people earning $250K/year. Roll back corporate tax loops.
Clinton: Wants to roll back tax breaks on people earning $250K/year. No roll-backs on corporate tax breaks. Instead wants to shore-up Medicaid tax breaks when no services are rendered and to make the healthcare system more efficient (merging patients’ records into an electronic system will save $77 billion/year).
Immigration and Jobs: Obama: (Unclear plan) wants to first improve the economy, fix infrastructure and increase investment (like education in poor areas and inner cities) and everyone comes out ahead - poor Blacks, undocumented citizens, poor Whites, etc.
Clinton: Believes that the exploitation of illegal immigrants does drive down wages. Wants to tighten borders, crack down on employers, and do more to help Mexico create jobs in Mexico. Aims to register illegals deport criminals, will give you a path to citizenship (pay back taxes, pay a fine, wait in line, learn English).
Iraq: Obama: Wants to withdraw a vast majority of troops in his first 60 days.
Clinton: Wants to withdraw most troops in the same timeframe, but also wants to keep some there to protect ambassadors, Iraqi translators, and allied forces.
So that’s it. Be informed. Go Vote.
A tree and the fruit it bares...
Everything about our identities is connected, directly or indirectly, to our parents. From our taste in music to our preferences in foreign versus domestic cars, our parent’s choices serve as a blueprint for the lives that we eventually build for ourselves. Whether we decide to emulate or deviate from their choices is likely to be contingent on the observed benefit of their decisions in comparison with the cost of deciding to act differently. Nevertheless, intergenerational correlations across various actions are large and consistent because the earliest cues of personal development learned from parents become the framework of every decision that any child will ever make.
Intergenerational correlations are most prevalent when observing wealth outcomes between parents and their children. Though various factors such as exposure to quality education, access to wealth, race and ethnicity account for much of this correlation, an interesting element to consider is the similarity in economic status of one’s marital partner to that of his or her parents. In the previous class, we discussed the prevalence of this occurrence and discovered that contrary to popular belief; the fallacy of a “Pretty Woman” [who is poor] marrying a rich man does not exist because trends show that rich men marry rich women, and poor women marry poor men. The persuasiveness of the evidence reviewed in class left me to wonder whether these tendencies were a result of individuals sharing the same social sphere or whether they proved that people marry mates of the same “pedigree” as themselves. Even more interesting is under what circumstances do individuals deviate from their own [relative] status quo and marry someone below their socioeconomic class?
Part of the challenge in understanding whether marriage choices are more dependent on social spheres or preferences is that the notion of “elitism” remains a faux pas in this country. Therefore, individuals who “seek out” mates of similar class status have an incentive to misrepresent their true preferences. Regardless of the stigma of this practice, it remains a practical tool in dating and ultimately choosing a mate for individuals across the class spectrum. Though many may debate the social appropriateness of this practice, most understand the inevitability of people to choose their companions in this manner. Rather than viewing the debate over “salad fork vs. barbeque” as two disparate trends, it is possible to view them as interconnected worldviews on socialization. For example, many reasonably argue that women do not necessarily disregard men of lower social status from their dating pool; instead, they only consider men with like experiences, interests, and goals. These attributes, most would argue, correlate heavily with education which subsequently correlates with income or economic status.
As mentioned earlier, considering the high propensity of both women and men to marry within their socioeconomic class, understanding the circumstances that induce deviation from this norm may provide compelling insight for further study. Various explanations could be applicable when considering race as a factor, such as the disproportionate amount of Black women versus Black men in the middle and upper middle class categories. The disproportionate effect may reasonably account for Black women’s higher inclination to marry men with a lower socioeconomic status than themselves. However, for white men or women who choose to marry someone who is not of the same pedigree, the reasons are less clear.
Choosing a lifetime companion is a very personal and intimate decision that most will face during the course of their life. In that light, if individuals decide to marry within or outside of their social class that decision should be above scrutiny. To the extent that further inquiry goes into this field other than for the purpose of explaining the prevalence of this trend is worrisome. Even if these trends disprove Americans notions of love having no boundaries, one must question whether we can remedy this phenomenon and more importantly, should we?
Intergenerational correlations are most prevalent when observing wealth outcomes between parents and their children. Though various factors such as exposure to quality education, access to wealth, race and ethnicity account for much of this correlation, an interesting element to consider is the similarity in economic status of one’s marital partner to that of his or her parents. In the previous class, we discussed the prevalence of this occurrence and discovered that contrary to popular belief; the fallacy of a “Pretty Woman” [who is poor] marrying a rich man does not exist because trends show that rich men marry rich women, and poor women marry poor men. The persuasiveness of the evidence reviewed in class left me to wonder whether these tendencies were a result of individuals sharing the same social sphere or whether they proved that people marry mates of the same “pedigree” as themselves. Even more interesting is under what circumstances do individuals deviate from their own [relative] status quo and marry someone below their socioeconomic class?
Part of the challenge in understanding whether marriage choices are more dependent on social spheres or preferences is that the notion of “elitism” remains a faux pas in this country. Therefore, individuals who “seek out” mates of similar class status have an incentive to misrepresent their true preferences. Regardless of the stigma of this practice, it remains a practical tool in dating and ultimately choosing a mate for individuals across the class spectrum. Though many may debate the social appropriateness of this practice, most understand the inevitability of people to choose their companions in this manner. Rather than viewing the debate over “salad fork vs. barbeque” as two disparate trends, it is possible to view them as interconnected worldviews on socialization. For example, many reasonably argue that women do not necessarily disregard men of lower social status from their dating pool; instead, they only consider men with like experiences, interests, and goals. These attributes, most would argue, correlate heavily with education which subsequently correlates with income or economic status.
As mentioned earlier, considering the high propensity of both women and men to marry within their socioeconomic class, understanding the circumstances that induce deviation from this norm may provide compelling insight for further study. Various explanations could be applicable when considering race as a factor, such as the disproportionate amount of Black women versus Black men in the middle and upper middle class categories. The disproportionate effect may reasonably account for Black women’s higher inclination to marry men with a lower socioeconomic status than themselves. However, for white men or women who choose to marry someone who is not of the same pedigree, the reasons are less clear.
Choosing a lifetime companion is a very personal and intimate decision that most will face during the course of their life. In that light, if individuals decide to marry within or outside of their social class that decision should be above scrutiny. To the extent that further inquiry goes into this field other than for the purpose of explaining the prevalence of this trend is worrisome. Even if these trends disprove Americans notions of love having no boundaries, one must question whether we can remedy this phenomenon and more importantly, should we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
