The Michael Vick story is a great example of a terrible problem in American society. Just not the one you're thinking of. It's a story of someone who took the punishment for their crime, and yet most of society wants him to fail on the other side. It's the story of how the criminal justice system is failed by society just as much as society is failed by the criminal justice system. It's also an example of how the basic moral of forgiveness escapes both our religious and secular populations.
The Obligatory Non-Defense Paragraph:
I am not defending Michael Vick's past actions, nor am I attempting to trivialize them. Nothing herein should be construed as a defense of such repulsive behavior. I like dogs. I don't understand dog fighting (or the culture around it, which is another under-reported aspect of this). I believe it is possible to defend Michael Vick without condoning these actions, and as such I will try.
So, we all know what Michael Vick did. We should all know that he admitted his guilt and rather than have some prolonged legal battle in which he'd likely have prevailed on some technicality or lawyer wizardry, he admitted his guilt. We should all know that he served time in prison that was not only deemed appropriate by the justice system, but is excessive when compared to others who have committed like crimes.
It isn't so clear why this means that Vick should no longer be a part of this society. The way he's regarded by some is baffling - whether it be various media members questioning the morality of appreciating Vick's football talent or random people on Facebook who must remind us of how horrible Vick is as a person every time he's on TV. I can see why someone would take such a stance against Ben Roethlisberger since he wasn't punished for the highly corroborated allegations of rape, but Vick's life was ruined after his crimes were exposed. He lost essentially everything he had. He lost a year of his life in prison. He's been thoroughly punished by the media, the courts, the NFL, and continues to be punished by society.
That's not enough for everyone, though. Some want to push it further and demonize anyone who would dare to support Vick's attempts to be a productive member of society. If you like how he plays you are a bad person because you've forgotten what he did.
Such a mentality is pervasive everywhere towards ex-cons. Social justice in our society is one that punishes first, but never forgives and rarely forgets. The punishment for a criminal record is to become a second-class citizen. You have to divulge it every time you apply for a job, or they'll likely find out anyway. Good luck getting that job at that point, unless it's something lowly that no one else wanted. Even so, this is occasionally more understandable than not. I understand that you don't want someone whose already committed fraud working in the banking industry. How does having a past involving animal abuse disqualify you from throwing a football? (Save the pigskin puns.)
If Michael Vick cannot contribute to society in the field of sports, for which he has tremendous and unique talent, then we need to throw out the entire justice system. We should switch to a system in which crimes at that level result in a quick death penalty. Why should we let these people out of prison if we've predetermined that they must not be able to positively contribute? If we're not letting them out then we may as well just off them now rather than sheltering them for dozens of years. This is society saying that the justice system is a failure, and it is a failure precisely because society deems it such and refuses to give ex-cons a chance.
That is also society's way of never forgiving. Forgiveness is a basic Christian value. The Koran prescribes swift punishment for certain actions, but forgiveness after. Culturally, it's a principle that has been important for millenia. Here is a case where forgiveness seems not to apply. After all, how can you forgive a man enough to let him throw a football when he's only been to the extent of the law, become a pariah, and lost most of his fortune? He clearly hasn't suffered enough, where "enough" is determined by the harshest sentence any member of the public can imagine for him. No, we can't forgive a man who has admitted he was wrong and paid the price, because such an action in our society has become taboo. Instead, we should forgive those who admit no wrongdoing and are never punished, or at least we should forget and then act enraged when reminded. Vick admitted his guilt and thus he should be dead to all of us, or maybe just dead.
What good is a failure for society? Why should we want someone to slip into destitution and obscurity when they do something wrong, even if they are punished for it? If Michael Vick were left with no football career do you think he is more or less likely to commit further crimes?
Personally, I hope Vick succeeds. I think his can be a success story, someone who made grave mistakes and lost it all but was able to bounce back after atonement. We almost never get to root for the ex-con, this is our chance.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Two Big Take-Aways from Last Night
I could write a lot about the importance of the elections last night or what went wrong and what went right, but I'm honestly in no mood. I'll summarize my thoughts like this: if you spoke to me two years ago I would have told you that the Republicans will take Congress back in 2010, and I'd be happy about it.
Of course, in the meantime the Republican party has become a vile piece of shit pressured by some of the most self centered people in the country to be even more vile, so I'm no longer happy about what happened. The Contract with America and the Silent Majority ended up being good for the country, even if they didn't really achieve their goals. I have a hard time believing that the Tea Party and whatever you want to call their radicalized bullshit will yield similar results. Back to the point...
Two things stand out in my mind more than anything else from last night:
John King needs an election results screen to be happy.
I mean, good for you, John. You looked so enthusiastic last night. I was delighted to see you in front of the touch screen again. You can point, click, pan, zoom, circle shit, and even write on it. You looked so very at home. I hope you have one of those things in your bedroom. If not, get one soon because I have a feeling you'll never be happier.
We don't have to worry about hard line Tea Partiers winning too many big races.
While they may be able to take individual districts and push the House far, far to the right last night showed that the larger the population is the less well the TP group does. In other words, every Democrat should be hoping for a strong TP influence in the next Presidential cycle. That will make Senate races easier to win (even Sestak almost won and he was running from the left, I have no doubt that Spector would have taken that race). More importantly, a radicalized, half-literate, batshit crazy Republican candidate or running mate guarantees a Democrat win for President.
The biggest proof of this is in Nevada. Reid was terribly unpopular. Almost anyone could have beat him. Sharron Angle is an extremist. She's not politically savvy. She has few populist views. She only came close because Reid has been demonized for the last two years, especially by Faux News and the conservative radio alternate universe. The Republicans worked hard to trickle this agenda into more mainstream and center targeted sources, at the very least presenting it as such that some hidden group of moderates was actually unhappy with Reid's specific performances, never mind that they were really unhappy because they were out of work and the only way the government can create jobs in a recession is through deficit spending, something the Republicans were set against even though it was the backbone of Reagan's fiscal policy. Yet, they were unable to beat him despite years of electioneering against him.
We'll see more of this. Definitely. It'll be like this in 2012. When it is, in an election that should have far greater turnout, we'll see even more defeats of radicalized Republicans. And it will be good.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Alice in Wonderland
When I decided to revive this blog after a few months of dormancy the first post I began to write was about the Tea Party. Specifically, I was going to explain why the Tea Party, as a group, can be considered racist. I never finished that post and a few others finally made the same argument I had in mind, rendering my purpose moot. Of course, since I abandoned that post I won't make that the subject of this one.
Instead, I'd like to propose a new tact with these idiots. It's the initial thought I had on the "movement:" ignore them. They aren't worth your time. They aren't worth my time.
When I thought about this a video came to mind. It's a CollegeHumor animated parody of Disney's Alice in Wonderland mad tea party. The more I think about this the more apt it becomes. Indeed, everyone else is playing the role of Alice while the Tea Partiers play the buffoons.
If you watch original scene you will notice some key elements of the Tea Party. It's fraught with false logic, their message is all over the place, and from the outside looking in they appear to just be crazy. Alice tries to talk sense to them, but when she does she's talked over, the subject is changed, or she's met with an even more nonsensical answer.
However, the Tea Party is not run by complete idiots, even if the public front is made up of imbeciles like Sarah Palin, the GOP political strategists behind the scenes are much savvier than we give them credit for. Like in the original there is more going on than we initially see. In the Mad Tea Party we are reminded that saying what you mean and meaning what you say are different concepts. This is also true of the political Tea Party. They've taken a couple pages from the activist's handbook and realized that by yelling louder you can over-represent yourself and that a loud extremist group can help the more mainstream groups redefine the centrist position.
At some point during the scene their ideas begin to make sense. Sure, it makes sense to maximize your partying by celebrating every day that isn't your birthday, if you really like to celebrate yourself. Just like it makes sense to cut taxes or to worry about the deficit. Of course, all of these ideas are short sighted.
Perhaps the most pertinent allegory of all is that of the original Mad Tea Party, in which the reason for tea time was due to the Mad Hatter being perpetually stuck at six o'clock. The Tea Party is rife with people who are stuck in a particular time period. Most of them are in an imaginary time when pop culture teaches us that some particular set of values ruled American life. Still, others are stuck in a time period where Reaganomics is still considered a good idea, and they've drank the Kool-Aid enough to conveniently forget that Reagan had a double dip recession, tripled the deficit, and his economic policies led to another recession in 1991. By knowing nothing of history the Tea Party has conveniently stuck themselves in a place where their goals are unattainable, because they're striving for a time in American life that either didn't exist or cannot exist without abandoning almost all American values. It would require government to dictate culture in a way that would make China seem like a Free society.
All of that is beside the point, though. It's the last salvo. The point here is that Alice eventually moved on. In the Disney version she didn't learn much, and I think that's how most Americans will be when this political scene eventually fades. Sure, she had a slightly better concept of how things work in Wonderland, and likewise I can see these political arguments causing some people to be at least slightly more aware of the governmental workings here. Mostly, in that it was just a time killer.
In the book Alice learns a bit more about the world. She learns that time is a person rather than a concept. She sees that there is a method to madness. Those who are more politically savvy may pick up on the subtler aspects of this brutish political group. Further, in the meta debate over their ideas both sides throw around political and economic concepts that are actually worthy of debate. It's very confusing, but perhaps that aspect is worthwhile and maybe when this farce comes to an end we will be ever so slightly better for its occurrence.
In both renditions, Alice walks off rather disgusted. That's what I think we should do here. It is what I will do. The first step in this process for me was realizing after my vacation that I don't want to catch up on the backlog of STFU, Teabaggers. Then I unsubscribed. I also unsubscribed from Media Matters because they rarely do more than pwn Fox News, another organization I think is a waste of time. I like both of these sites, especially STFU Teabaggers where I was a somewhat frequent, though anonymous, contributor. It's not that I will completely erase news about these groups from my life, but I will no longer partake in concentrated vitriol against them.
The Tea Party is essentially a group of political trolls. They don't exist to further the conversation, they exist to influence it in the most negative and nonproductive ways possible. Trolls use misdirection to derail a debate. The best way to handle trolls is not to feed them, starve them of attention. They simply aren't worth the time.
p.s. The reason why the Tea Party is racist is because they've actively embraced or ignored their racist elements. The same is true of any group, tacit ignorance and acceptance is the best way to cosign a message. It is something that is only solved by internally policing what is and isn't socially acceptable within your group. For instance, left leaning media offered up some very sexist views of Hillary Clinton during her Presidential campaign, but the greater population of socially progressive people shamed them for it, including then candidate Barack Obama.
Instead, I'd like to propose a new tact with these idiots. It's the initial thought I had on the "movement:" ignore them. They aren't worth your time. They aren't worth my time.
When I thought about this a video came to mind. It's a CollegeHumor animated parody of Disney's Alice in Wonderland mad tea party. The more I think about this the more apt it becomes. Indeed, everyone else is playing the role of Alice while the Tea Partiers play the buffoons.
If you watch original scene you will notice some key elements of the Tea Party. It's fraught with false logic, their message is all over the place, and from the outside looking in they appear to just be crazy. Alice tries to talk sense to them, but when she does she's talked over, the subject is changed, or she's met with an even more nonsensical answer.
However, the Tea Party is not run by complete idiots, even if the public front is made up of imbeciles like Sarah Palin, the GOP political strategists behind the scenes are much savvier than we give them credit for. Like in the original there is more going on than we initially see. In the Mad Tea Party we are reminded that saying what you mean and meaning what you say are different concepts. This is also true of the political Tea Party. They've taken a couple pages from the activist's handbook and realized that by yelling louder you can over-represent yourself and that a loud extremist group can help the more mainstream groups redefine the centrist position.
At some point during the scene their ideas begin to make sense. Sure, it makes sense to maximize your partying by celebrating every day that isn't your birthday, if you really like to celebrate yourself. Just like it makes sense to cut taxes or to worry about the deficit. Of course, all of these ideas are short sighted.
Perhaps the most pertinent allegory of all is that of the original Mad Tea Party, in which the reason for tea time was due to the Mad Hatter being perpetually stuck at six o'clock. The Tea Party is rife with people who are stuck in a particular time period. Most of them are in an imaginary time when pop culture teaches us that some particular set of values ruled American life. Still, others are stuck in a time period where Reaganomics is still considered a good idea, and they've drank the Kool-Aid enough to conveniently forget that Reagan had a double dip recession, tripled the deficit, and his economic policies led to another recession in 1991. By knowing nothing of history the Tea Party has conveniently stuck themselves in a place where their goals are unattainable, because they're striving for a time in American life that either didn't exist or cannot exist without abandoning almost all American values. It would require government to dictate culture in a way that would make China seem like a Free society.
All of that is beside the point, though. It's the last salvo. The point here is that Alice eventually moved on. In the Disney version she didn't learn much, and I think that's how most Americans will be when this political scene eventually fades. Sure, she had a slightly better concept of how things work in Wonderland, and likewise I can see these political arguments causing some people to be at least slightly more aware of the governmental workings here. Mostly, in that it was just a time killer.
In the book Alice learns a bit more about the world. She learns that time is a person rather than a concept. She sees that there is a method to madness. Those who are more politically savvy may pick up on the subtler aspects of this brutish political group. Further, in the meta debate over their ideas both sides throw around political and economic concepts that are actually worthy of debate. It's very confusing, but perhaps that aspect is worthwhile and maybe when this farce comes to an end we will be ever so slightly better for its occurrence.
In both renditions, Alice walks off rather disgusted. That's what I think we should do here. It is what I will do. The first step in this process for me was realizing after my vacation that I don't want to catch up on the backlog of STFU, Teabaggers. Then I unsubscribed. I also unsubscribed from Media Matters because they rarely do more than pwn Fox News, another organization I think is a waste of time. I like both of these sites, especially STFU Teabaggers where I was a somewhat frequent, though anonymous, contributor. It's not that I will completely erase news about these groups from my life, but I will no longer partake in concentrated vitriol against them.
The Tea Party is essentially a group of political trolls. They don't exist to further the conversation, they exist to influence it in the most negative and nonproductive ways possible. Trolls use misdirection to derail a debate. The best way to handle trolls is not to feed them, starve them of attention. They simply aren't worth the time.
p.s. The reason why the Tea Party is racist is because they've actively embraced or ignored their racist elements. The same is true of any group, tacit ignorance and acceptance is the best way to cosign a message. It is something that is only solved by internally policing what is and isn't socially acceptable within your group. For instance, left leaning media offered up some very sexist views of Hillary Clinton during her Presidential campaign, but the greater population of socially progressive people shamed them for it, including then candidate Barack Obama.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
DINOsaurs
Politics around the healthcare debate have reached fairly epic levels recently. As the bill passed I've noticed a general mood among the people I know who are even remotely politically aware that is eerily similar to the mood before and immediately after the election. Moderate Republicans have all but shut up about things after passage, meanwhile the radical factions have gone completely bonkers. [Note: for some it was not a long journey.] Democrats were whipped up at the end, and they still have a feint elation about the entire ordeal, yet the pessimism that this administration is not liberal enough soon returned.
Granted, it has been my position that this administration is neither significantly more liberal or less liberal than President Obama promised as a candidate. I also believe that by the administration and congress whipping members into passing comprehensive health care reform, among various other acts that are done or in the works, they've been very productive. Between this and credit card reform alone, I'm very happy with the first year or so of this administration.
I'm not as happy with congressional Democrats, though. They seem almost completely inept at forming any sort of narrative or defending any of their actions. I can't think of the last time that a Democratic member of the legislative branch called out the revisionist history that the Republicans are selling. The history that says that tea partiers are the majority voice of the people (which only works if you look at racial demographics) while ignoring the historic victory that brought President Obama into the White House. The history that blames Obama for the recession, ignoring that the housing crisis started during the summer of '08, and the problems that led to our crappy economy were almost completely ignored by the previous administration and the ones before it. The history that calls out as offensive almost every presidential act that Obama performs, regardless of the bipartisan precedent of that act. The history that calls the obstructionist attitudes of Republicans - who are now voting against proposals identical to those they previously drafted - maverick and revolutionary. Why aren't our representatives fighting back at this? Why isn't anyone standing up to say, "Hey, that's a lie," or "This health care plan was good enough for you when you offered a nearly identical plan as an alternative to the Clinton health care legislation."?
I believe it is because we've let our Democrat representatives grow too soft. We've mistakenly believed that a sweeping victory for Democrats in two straight elections would give them the leverage necessary to make the progressive changes we desire. We were wrong. Not in our intentions, but in our judgment. We were led to believe in the majorities we gave, but these were false majorities propped up by numerous "independents" and "blue dog" Democrats. When the other side formed a narrative that the majority was dangerous, ignoring what previous majorities on their part had done, these groups of right-leaning politicians that caucus with the Democrats completely caved, and they took the rest of their caucus with them.
I propose that we frame a new narrative for the upcoming election. I believe we should challenge every one of these worthless "Democrats" from the left. We should be upset at their inaction, cowering and inability to properly represent the people who elected them. If the Republican have RINOs, then we should properly label these politicians DINOs. Democrat In Name Only. Also, because they tend to cling to an anti-progressive agenda that ignores civil rights movements over the last five decades, we can call them DINOsaurs. They're outdated and unwanted. When they lose their office we should let them know it is not because they leaned too far left, but because they leaned too far right and we could no longer support them. We don't need them in our caucus.
We should expect some losses come this November, but they will largely be these useless barnacles that do almost nothing to further our cause. Progressives need not lament, but instead become engaged. Good riddance to these people, let's work to replace them with someone useful.
Granted, it has been my position that this administration is neither significantly more liberal or less liberal than President Obama promised as a candidate. I also believe that by the administration and congress whipping members into passing comprehensive health care reform, among various other acts that are done or in the works, they've been very productive. Between this and credit card reform alone, I'm very happy with the first year or so of this administration.
I'm not as happy with congressional Democrats, though. They seem almost completely inept at forming any sort of narrative or defending any of their actions. I can't think of the last time that a Democratic member of the legislative branch called out the revisionist history that the Republicans are selling. The history that says that tea partiers are the majority voice of the people (which only works if you look at racial demographics) while ignoring the historic victory that brought President Obama into the White House. The history that blames Obama for the recession, ignoring that the housing crisis started during the summer of '08, and the problems that led to our crappy economy were almost completely ignored by the previous administration and the ones before it. The history that calls out as offensive almost every presidential act that Obama performs, regardless of the bipartisan precedent of that act. The history that calls the obstructionist attitudes of Republicans - who are now voting against proposals identical to those they previously drafted - maverick and revolutionary. Why aren't our representatives fighting back at this? Why isn't anyone standing up to say, "Hey, that's a lie," or "This health care plan was good enough for you when you offered a nearly identical plan as an alternative to the Clinton health care legislation."?
I believe it is because we've let our Democrat representatives grow too soft. We've mistakenly believed that a sweeping victory for Democrats in two straight elections would give them the leverage necessary to make the progressive changes we desire. We were wrong. Not in our intentions, but in our judgment. We were led to believe in the majorities we gave, but these were false majorities propped up by numerous "independents" and "blue dog" Democrats. When the other side formed a narrative that the majority was dangerous, ignoring what previous majorities on their part had done, these groups of right-leaning politicians that caucus with the Democrats completely caved, and they took the rest of their caucus with them.
I propose that we frame a new narrative for the upcoming election. I believe we should challenge every one of these worthless "Democrats" from the left. We should be upset at their inaction, cowering and inability to properly represent the people who elected them. If the Republican have RINOs, then we should properly label these politicians DINOs. Democrat In Name Only. Also, because they tend to cling to an anti-progressive agenda that ignores civil rights movements over the last five decades, we can call them DINOsaurs. They're outdated and unwanted. When they lose their office we should let them know it is not because they leaned too far left, but because they leaned too far right and we could no longer support them. We don't need them in our caucus.
We should expect some losses come this November, but they will largely be these useless barnacles that do almost nothing to further our cause. Progressives need not lament, but instead become engaged. Good riddance to these people, let's work to replace them with someone useful.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Christie Guts Education
I was reading an article posted on Facebook about NJ Governor Christie's cuts to educational funding. Some of the responses seemed to cheer for Christie and these huge cuts, claiming that they were aimed squarely at corruption. This is a short version of my opinion on the topic. I think there's a lot of misconceptions on this issue:
Cutting funding for education isn't going after corruption. It's a blatant affront to public service. What corruption there is won't be so easily weeded out. But he and others like him are in favor of voucher systems and charter schools, this is an attack on the secular public schools in favor of private (and largely religious) private schools.
It's also an attack on the communities that need this most. If you look at the list of cuts the biggest (dollar wise) are in the neediest areas. Obviously Upper Saddle River schools will get by without an extra $300k, and they'll have an easier time finding a way to replace that money. Passaic and Paterson schools lost millions, and they'll have to cut innumerable services and jobs to make up for that. They cannot squeeze blood from a stone by raising local taxes enough to cover this. Indeed, even if they could Christie has made sure that's impossible because the cuts across the board are 5% or more and local municipalities are only allowed to raise property taxes enough to cover a 4% school budget increase.
But let's look at the corruption issue and charter schools. What makes anyone think charter schools are immune to corruption? Evidence points to as much or more corruption in charter schools. Let's use my hometown of Dayton, OH as an example. Faced with high unemployment and low tax revenues the city tried a charter school system that promised to cut costs and corruption. The result? Charter school owners took the money and ran, did not provide even half of the services they promised, and many of them have been shut down with their administrators indicted or sued by the city. Now the city's schools are in complete shambles and the system is bankrupt, bogged down with several lawsuits and scrambling to figure out what to do with children who no longer have schools.... See More
Instead of hearing failed stories like this we're presented with the stories of privileged children who excel in these schools. In upper-middle class areas where families have two parents and home life is easy. Areas where charter schools are easy to fund and likely to succeed, and there's little evidence that the public schools were failing. Areas where there is no need for after-school programs, or food assistance, allowing the schools to operate cheaply and at a profit.
Then there's the teachers. Do you think charter school teacher make so much less than public school teachers? Do you think public school teachers make so very much money? In NJ, one of the highest paying states for teachers in the country (but also one of the wealthiest states and among the highest cost of living), teachers make on average slightly more than the average college graduate. Those averages ignore the different types of degrees, for instance the math and science teachers are required to have degrees that would result in higher pay in the private sector. Also, those with postgraduate education are included in that average, and the average pay for those with masters degrees is $30k more per year than the average pay for teachers.
Suffice to say I think the data presented is often skewed, and there's such a huge focus on the benefits teachers get and the misinformation about their salaries. What Christie is doing is beyond the pale, some cuts were required but to simultaneously cut services for the poor and taxes for the rich is sickening. I have a very wealthy friend who is moving to CT. She's moving because the school system in Montclair is so bad. We don't need to protect the rich, they aren't leaving the wealthy areas in any sort of worrying numbers.
Cutting funding for education isn't going after corruption. It's a blatant affront to public service. What corruption there is won't be so easily weeded out. But he and others like him are in favor of voucher systems and charter schools, this is an attack on the secular public schools in favor of private (and largely religious) private schools.
It's also an attack on the communities that need this most. If you look at the list of cuts the biggest (dollar wise) are in the neediest areas. Obviously Upper Saddle River schools will get by without an extra $300k, and they'll have an easier time finding a way to replace that money. Passaic and Paterson schools lost millions, and they'll have to cut innumerable services and jobs to make up for that. They cannot squeeze blood from a stone by raising local taxes enough to cover this. Indeed, even if they could Christie has made sure that's impossible because the cuts across the board are 5% or more and local municipalities are only allowed to raise property taxes enough to cover a 4% school budget increase.
But let's look at the corruption issue and charter schools. What makes anyone think charter schools are immune to corruption? Evidence points to as much or more corruption in charter schools. Let's use my hometown of Dayton, OH as an example. Faced with high unemployment and low tax revenues the city tried a charter school system that promised to cut costs and corruption. The result? Charter school owners took the money and ran, did not provide even half of the services they promised, and many of them have been shut down with their administrators indicted or sued by the city. Now the city's schools are in complete shambles and the system is bankrupt, bogged down with several lawsuits and scrambling to figure out what to do with children who no longer have schools.... See More
Instead of hearing failed stories like this we're presented with the stories of privileged children who excel in these schools. In upper-middle class areas where families have two parents and home life is easy. Areas where charter schools are easy to fund and likely to succeed, and there's little evidence that the public schools were failing. Areas where there is no need for after-school programs, or food assistance, allowing the schools to operate cheaply and at a profit.
Then there's the teachers. Do you think charter school teacher make so much less than public school teachers? Do you think public school teachers make so very much money? In NJ, one of the highest paying states for teachers in the country (but also one of the wealthiest states and among the highest cost of living), teachers make on average slightly more than the average college graduate. Those averages ignore the different types of degrees, for instance the math and science teachers are required to have degrees that would result in higher pay in the private sector. Also, those with postgraduate education are included in that average, and the average pay for those with masters degrees is $30k more per year than the average pay for teachers.
Suffice to say I think the data presented is often skewed, and there's such a huge focus on the benefits teachers get and the misinformation about their salaries. What Christie is doing is beyond the pale, some cuts were required but to simultaneously cut services for the poor and taxes for the rich is sickening. I have a very wealthy friend who is moving to CT. She's moving because the school system in Montclair is so bad. We don't need to protect the rich, they aren't leaving the wealthy areas in any sort of worrying numbers.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
That Adolf Hitler Kid
I'm still following this story. I'm waiting for DYFS to release a statement on why these kids were removed from their homes. This was too much of a one sided story and I want the record set straight.
In case you missed it: Late last year it came to light that some ignorant white supremacist trolled the world by naming his kids after nazi* icons. On a slow news day his local ShopRite did the right thing by refusing to make a cake saying "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler." He was instantly a hero to those who portray common sense and decency as "PC," a martryr to racists everywhere, and a huge jackass to everyone else. End of story.
Only, it wasn't the end. DYFS came in a few weeks later and removed his kids. That's when the martyrdom was kicked up a notch. Suddenly, everyone in the world became a Monday morning social worker and the popular assumption was that these kids were removed due to their ridiculously stupid names. This was compounded because only the parents are allowed to talk as DYFS, as most such social services, has strict confidentiality laws about their cases.
I take issue with the parents, the names they gave their kids, their defense for the names, at least one popular defense for the names given by others -- including their aunt, and the assumption that DYFS is doing something wrong.
The Parents
These people have to be off their rockers. Honestly, who gives kids such names? What did they think the result would be? If nothing else, they are obviously too stupid to realize that freedoms go both ways and everyone else is free to shun their kids for their names and treat them like manure. The saddest part is that they had three children and didn't learn.
The Names
Well, this goes without saying. It's one thing to name your kid after someone controversial. If I were to name my kid after Malcolm X I would probably raise some eyebrows. Yet, I would not be naming him after perpetrators of some of the worst acts in human history. It's unfathomably gross to think that someone in good conscious named these children such.
Ignoring all of the psychology involved for the kid, by giving that name they paid tribute to Hitler and publicly acknowledged that they held Hitler in the highest esteem. Hitler's name should be ascribed to waste baskets and poop scoops, not children.
If they had chosen the name Adolf you wouldn't be reading this now but that's not what they did. They chose Adolf Hitler, leaving no doubt about who they were naming the child after. It's sick and stupid and the parents deserve whatever misfortune this name brings about.
Their Defense of the Names
This is one of the more insulting aspects of this story. These people are either completely delusional or they just take the public for suckers, probably a bit of both. Their claim is that they gave these names due to a desire for a unique identity for their children. Seriously? You couldn't think of anything better than to name your children after insane war criminals responsible for genocide? We're supposed to buy this?
Further insult to our intelligence comes when questioned about the swastika tattoo on the father's neck. He's not racist, he just likes the artwork. Sure, buddy.
The Popular Defense
Several editorials, blogs, and comments I came across about this situation offered the same quip that one of the family's relatives did during an interview with the local NBC affiliate. They combined two current events, this one and the election, and came up with the brilliant "but we just elected someone name Barack HUSSEIN!!!!!!!! Obama."
Do you really not see the difference? If you don't, stop reading and never return to this site again. There's no help for you. Just to spell it out, though: President Obama was named before the tyrant dictator took power. He was not named after Saddam. Further, Saddam sullied a fairly common name, but by no means to the extent that Hitler did with Adolf. It is very clear that Barack was not named after Saddam at all, but it is even clearer that this child was named after Hitler. To indicate that it is acceptable to name someone after Hitler because someone who is accepted by society coincidentally shares one of his names with Saddam Hussein is flawed logic of the worst kind.
If you still have a problem with Barack Obama's name then you should read this article by Juan Cole. He does an excellent job explaining why there is no good reason to have a problem with our President's name.
The Assumption About DYFS
Here's the big one. No one seems willing to let DYFS have any slack. Even the more analytical and understanding people I know have criticized the removal of the children because "it's just because their names."
I have a hard time believing this. From what I know about social services it is quite improbable that the children would be removed from their parents purely due to their names.
The more likely scenario is: The national news story sent one of their neighbors over the edge and they decided to make a report about abuse. DYFS is then legally required to investigate. Upon investigation some legitimate reason to temporarily remove the children from the home was uncovered. The children were removed.
Why would I assume that DYFS didn't do anything wrong?
The parents in this situation can offer no evidence that DYFS did anything wrong. They are merely throwing out baseless accusations that make us condemn the agency for our own prejudice against the family. This is classic behavior when a child is removed from a family.
Meanwhile, DYFS isn't giving us any reason to believe them. The problem here is that we don't need any more reason than we already have. DYFS is regulated and they cannot just go around removing kids for no reason.
Further, it is not easy to remove children from a family. Social workers take no pleasure in doing this, except maybe in the worst of circumstances. There is a lot of work involved and a lot of regulation. There is no joy in taking a child from their parent.
To insinuate that DYFS would remove children for no reason beyond their names, with no evidence aside from wild accusations by the parents in an attempt to start a media war, is ridiculous. However, it's beyond ridiculous for the social workers involved. Human beings, who obviously have more common sense than these parents, and are compassionate enough to take a thankless job so they can try to help kids, are behind these actions. These parents, and those who accept their claims at face value, are demonizing these faceless social workers who can't even legally speak for themselves.
I'll leave the fate of the children to the courts. Until then I won't assume that the parents are guilty of anything. I also won't assume the DYFS did anything wrong. Regardless of the outcome, I will continue to believe that Heath and Deborah Campbell are failures at life.
*I don't care about spell check, this word does not deserve to be capitalized.
In case you missed it: Late last year it came to light that some ignorant white supremacist trolled the world by naming his kids after nazi* icons. On a slow news day his local ShopRite did the right thing by refusing to make a cake saying "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler." He was instantly a hero to those who portray common sense and decency as "PC," a martryr to racists everywhere, and a huge jackass to everyone else. End of story.
Only, it wasn't the end. DYFS came in a few weeks later and removed his kids. That's when the martyrdom was kicked up a notch. Suddenly, everyone in the world became a Monday morning social worker and the popular assumption was that these kids were removed due to their ridiculously stupid names. This was compounded because only the parents are allowed to talk as DYFS, as most such social services, has strict confidentiality laws about their cases.
I take issue with the parents, the names they gave their kids, their defense for the names, at least one popular defense for the names given by others -- including their aunt, and the assumption that DYFS is doing something wrong.
The Parents
These people have to be off their rockers. Honestly, who gives kids such names? What did they think the result would be? If nothing else, they are obviously too stupid to realize that freedoms go both ways and everyone else is free to shun their kids for their names and treat them like manure. The saddest part is that they had three children and didn't learn.
The Names
Well, this goes without saying. It's one thing to name your kid after someone controversial. If I were to name my kid after Malcolm X I would probably raise some eyebrows. Yet, I would not be naming him after perpetrators of some of the worst acts in human history. It's unfathomably gross to think that someone in good conscious named these children such.
Ignoring all of the psychology involved for the kid, by giving that name they paid tribute to Hitler and publicly acknowledged that they held Hitler in the highest esteem. Hitler's name should be ascribed to waste baskets and poop scoops, not children.
If they had chosen the name Adolf you wouldn't be reading this now but that's not what they did. They chose Adolf Hitler, leaving no doubt about who they were naming the child after. It's sick and stupid and the parents deserve whatever misfortune this name brings about.
Their Defense of the Names
This is one of the more insulting aspects of this story. These people are either completely delusional or they just take the public for suckers, probably a bit of both. Their claim is that they gave these names due to a desire for a unique identity for their children. Seriously? You couldn't think of anything better than to name your children after insane war criminals responsible for genocide? We're supposed to buy this?
Further insult to our intelligence comes when questioned about the swastika tattoo on the father's neck. He's not racist, he just likes the artwork. Sure, buddy.
The Popular Defense
Several editorials, blogs, and comments I came across about this situation offered the same quip that one of the family's relatives did during an interview with the local NBC affiliate. They combined two current events, this one and the election, and came up with the brilliant "but we just elected someone name Barack HUSSEIN!!!!!!!! Obama."
Do you really not see the difference? If you don't, stop reading and never return to this site again. There's no help for you. Just to spell it out, though: President Obama was named before the tyrant dictator took power. He was not named after Saddam. Further, Saddam sullied a fairly common name, but by no means to the extent that Hitler did with Adolf. It is very clear that Barack was not named after Saddam at all, but it is even clearer that this child was named after Hitler. To indicate that it is acceptable to name someone after Hitler because someone who is accepted by society coincidentally shares one of his names with Saddam Hussein is flawed logic of the worst kind.
If you still have a problem with Barack Obama's name then you should read this article by Juan Cole. He does an excellent job explaining why there is no good reason to have a problem with our President's name.
The Assumption About DYFS
Here's the big one. No one seems willing to let DYFS have any slack. Even the more analytical and understanding people I know have criticized the removal of the children because "it's just because their names."
I have a hard time believing this. From what I know about social services it is quite improbable that the children would be removed from their parents purely due to their names.
The more likely scenario is: The national news story sent one of their neighbors over the edge and they decided to make a report about abuse. DYFS is then legally required to investigate. Upon investigation some legitimate reason to temporarily remove the children from the home was uncovered. The children were removed.
Why would I assume that DYFS didn't do anything wrong?
The parents in this situation can offer no evidence that DYFS did anything wrong. They are merely throwing out baseless accusations that make us condemn the agency for our own prejudice against the family. This is classic behavior when a child is removed from a family.
Meanwhile, DYFS isn't giving us any reason to believe them. The problem here is that we don't need any more reason than we already have. DYFS is regulated and they cannot just go around removing kids for no reason.
Further, it is not easy to remove children from a family. Social workers take no pleasure in doing this, except maybe in the worst of circumstances. There is a lot of work involved and a lot of regulation. There is no joy in taking a child from their parent.
To insinuate that DYFS would remove children for no reason beyond their names, with no evidence aside from wild accusations by the parents in an attempt to start a media war, is ridiculous. However, it's beyond ridiculous for the social workers involved. Human beings, who obviously have more common sense than these parents, and are compassionate enough to take a thankless job so they can try to help kids, are behind these actions. These parents, and those who accept their claims at face value, are demonizing these faceless social workers who can't even legally speak for themselves.
I'll leave the fate of the children to the courts. Until then I won't assume that the parents are guilty of anything. I also won't assume the DYFS did anything wrong. Regardless of the outcome, I will continue to believe that Heath and Deborah Campbell are failures at life.
*I don't care about spell check, this word does not deserve to be capitalized.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Speed Camera Woes
I'm strongly against automatic traffic enforcement. Not the least of my complaints is that the guilty until proven innocent procedure that most of them use is unconstitutional. The systems are sold to communities as a fund raising program.
So, it is with great pleasure that I read about high school students in Montgomery County, Maryland gaming the system. They've exposed a huge flaw in camera based systems with no human review: you can cheaply fool the system with fake plates.
Unfortunately, I can already guess what the county will do about this. They'll increase patrols to catch a few kids with fake license plates. They have to spend money to protect their investment.
Still, we can sit back and laugh as pranks like these increase the cost of automatic enforcement all over the country. Spread the word.
So, it is with great pleasure that I read about high school students in Montgomery County, Maryland gaming the system. They've exposed a huge flaw in camera based systems with no human review: you can cheaply fool the system with fake plates.
Originating from Wootton High School, the parent said, students duplicate the license plates by printing plate numbers on glossy photo paper, using fonts from certain websites that "mimic" those on Maryland license plates. They tape the duplicate plate over the existing plate on the back of their car and purposefully speed through a speed camera, the parent said. The victim then receives a citation in the mail days later.
Unfortunately, I can already guess what the county will do about this. They'll increase patrols to catch a few kids with fake license plates. They have to spend money to protect their investment.
Still, we can sit back and laugh as pranks like these increase the cost of automatic enforcement all over the country. Spread the word.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Free Trade: Why Don't You Get a Job?
A coworker sent my department one of those junk emails with crappy jokes today. This one was about a guy looking for a job. It went down a list and mentioned all of the things he was wearing and using and where they were supposedly "made." The punchline was that everything was foreign and he wondered why he couldn't find work.
Welcome to global economics with free, but not fair, trade.
The problem I have with sentiments like those insinuated in the email is that they blame the wrong thing. They blame everyone else, but especially the foreign workers for having the audacity to import their goods.
There is a distinct failure to blame the politicians for opening up free trade without ever imposing the slightest bit of human rights, workers rights, or environmental regulation. More importantly, there is the failure of our mindless consumerism to ever think of the consequence of blind shopping for the lowest price in a category with little actual understanding of how that price is achieved. In short, the reason we don't have manufacturing is because we exported it willingly and then refused to buy local.
So, if its the jobless man's fault that he can't find a manufacturing job, or his father's or his neighbor's, where's the joke? I'll rewrite it for you: All he needs to do is wait for the economy to collapse to the point where he can't afford any of those things and the capitalists will gladly pay him $0.12 per hour to make them instead.
Welcome to global economics with free, but not fair, trade.
The problem I have with sentiments like those insinuated in the email is that they blame the wrong thing. They blame everyone else, but especially the foreign workers for having the audacity to import their goods.
There is a distinct failure to blame the politicians for opening up free trade without ever imposing the slightest bit of human rights, workers rights, or environmental regulation. More importantly, there is the failure of our mindless consumerism to ever think of the consequence of blind shopping for the lowest price in a category with little actual understanding of how that price is achieved. In short, the reason we don't have manufacturing is because we exported it willingly and then refused to buy local.
So, if its the jobless man's fault that he can't find a manufacturing job, or his father's or his neighbor's, where's the joke? I'll rewrite it for you: All he needs to do is wait for the economy to collapse to the point where he can't afford any of those things and the capitalists will gladly pay him $0.12 per hour to make them instead.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Race and The Race
Ever since the Democratic primaries were pared down to two people, I've been thinking about just what it will mean to have a non-white President. I think it says a lot about where we're at as a country. Probably not as much as some would want to believe, but we still have to give ourselves credit.
Early on, I maintained that it was possible for us to elect a non-white President, even a black one. Doubters, especially Hillary supporters, claimed that it was impossible for a non-white to win in this country. Their claim was that racism is too strong, and the racists too plentiful. I think they sold our country short and overstated the problem. I also argued that they were proposing to empower the racists if they let that fear alone prevent them from voting for Obama.
Here we are, less than a week from the election and every major polling agency and aggregator has the race for Obama. Most of the projected leads are statistically significant. The aggregate lead appears insurmountable for the Republican, whose only chance appears to be a belief in the Bradley Effect.
I find myself particularly swayed by the arguments that the Bradley Effect won't play any roll in this election, at least not a significant one. If it appeared in the primaries all it did was keep Clinton afloat in a couple of states, but Obama outperformed more polls than he underperformed. If anything, it would seem that various sector of Obama's support are being vastly under polled. I think we're set to see a landslide and he will win at least one state in the South that was thought to be an impregnable Republican safe haven, probably Georgia if any.
That doesn't mean racism is dead.
The racist reaction was strong, if not as strong as most feared. There have been so many overtly racist events surrounding this election. Every side is guilty, but none more so than the Republicans. No one is more complicit than Sarah Palin.
All over the country the Republican base was fired up over Governor Palin. Almost universally for the wrong reasons, although we must admit that she does appear to have a decent record against corruption, even if she just replaced old corruption with new corruption. They supported her because of her subtle bigotry, her religion (in all its extremist Christian glory), and her gender. Even the gender issue is for the wrong reason, she's not a feminist, nor a ground breaker, she's trying to ride Hillary's coattails in the most offensive way possible. The message was clear: If you want to vote for a minority you can still vote McCain. Don't worry about whether your vote is for or against feminism or if it will positively impact the institutional racism and patriarchy in our society, you're voting for a ticket with less penises than the other.
Once the honeymoon faded Palin's supporters had a hard time drumming up enthusiasm. She failed to connect with anyone but her narrow base, shy of a few old perverted men. So she fell on America's current worst racial issue: Our public acceptance of racism toward Arabs and bigotry against Islam. It didn't take long for her and her supporters to complete the circle back to the early whisper campaigns. The insinuation is that Obama is a radical black Muslim, the image they painted in the minds of racist Americans (this is a subset, not an indictment of us all) was that of the Black Panther with their fist in the air. It was just shy of screaming, "C'mon, people, he's black!"
Weeks later and the Republicans have not seriously censured this group of racists. They maintain their claim that Obama is "different," even as the differences between Palin and the average American become more and more clear. Recently in Iowa, Palin spent a solid minute merely talking over the crowd's growing anger and shouts of "he's a nigger!" Has she ever stopped to tell the crowd that she won't tolerate that, that it's not right and it's not how Republicans should act? No. That is why it keeps happening, that's why it has gotten worse.
I believe that what is happening is that we've flushed the racists out. They can only think to rally around Palin as their last bastion of hope against a black President. They are scared, because racism is born of fear and stupidity. These rallies are a support group for the racists. A last effort for them to vent their anger and fear before the coming unknown. In that, I believe the results we're seeing manage to slightly overstate the true weight of the racism problem in the Republican party, America, and the individual locations that host the events.
At the same time we can't give too much credit to the Democrats, or Obama supporters in general. The ability to ignore race due to the gravity of other issues does not signify the absence of racism. Indeed, there are plenty of voters who are simply voting "for the nigger." It's dangerous to ignore what this means. This indicates that racism is still a very real problem in our country, but even racists have their limits and very few people are shallow and stupid enough to allow race to be the most important issue.
So, if he wins what does it mean?
It means that we're less racist than almost anyone gave us credit for. Or, at the very least, that we do not let our racism affect our most important decisions. What is equally important is what it doesn't mean: This is not the end of racism in America. There is still a lot of evidence that we have a long way to go, and we need to seize the moment to make things better.
This does send a message to the world. I don't think it says that racism is dead. Instead, I think it says that we're growing up and we're moving on. It says that the slack jawed ignorant self-identifying redneck is no longer acceptable as our representative stereotype. We are more complex and diverse. Most importantly, I think it signifies that we care about how our country is perceived.
The worst possible outcome here would be if we declared victory prematurely. There isn't an exit strategy for the war on racism yet. Equality does not exist in our society, and what little equality there is has not yet reached a proper level of sustainability. Having an African American President does not invalidate Affirmative Action. This country is still a patriarchy ruled by the whites. The social systems that enforce that are still in place, let alone the governmental ones. We cannot throw up our hands in victory and give up. We cannot be complacent.
Now is the time for increased vigilance. This election has forced the dormant race issue to the surface. It is within our reach, we can grab it and attempt to fix it. We're 90 percent there, we just have the other 90 percent to worry about.
Early on, I maintained that it was possible for us to elect a non-white President, even a black one. Doubters, especially Hillary supporters, claimed that it was impossible for a non-white to win in this country. Their claim was that racism is too strong, and the racists too plentiful. I think they sold our country short and overstated the problem. I also argued that they were proposing to empower the racists if they let that fear alone prevent them from voting for Obama.
Here we are, less than a week from the election and every major polling agency and aggregator has the race for Obama. Most of the projected leads are statistically significant. The aggregate lead appears insurmountable for the Republican, whose only chance appears to be a belief in the Bradley Effect.
I find myself particularly swayed by the arguments that the Bradley Effect won't play any roll in this election, at least not a significant one. If it appeared in the primaries all it did was keep Clinton afloat in a couple of states, but Obama outperformed more polls than he underperformed. If anything, it would seem that various sector of Obama's support are being vastly under polled. I think we're set to see a landslide and he will win at least one state in the South that was thought to be an impregnable Republican safe haven, probably Georgia if any.
That doesn't mean racism is dead.
The racist reaction was strong, if not as strong as most feared. There have been so many overtly racist events surrounding this election. Every side is guilty, but none more so than the Republicans. No one is more complicit than Sarah Palin.
All over the country the Republican base was fired up over Governor Palin. Almost universally for the wrong reasons, although we must admit that she does appear to have a decent record against corruption, even if she just replaced old corruption with new corruption. They supported her because of her subtle bigotry, her religion (in all its extremist Christian glory), and her gender. Even the gender issue is for the wrong reason, she's not a feminist, nor a ground breaker, she's trying to ride Hillary's coattails in the most offensive way possible. The message was clear: If you want to vote for a minority you can still vote McCain. Don't worry about whether your vote is for or against feminism or if it will positively impact the institutional racism and patriarchy in our society, you're voting for a ticket with less penises than the other.
Once the honeymoon faded Palin's supporters had a hard time drumming up enthusiasm. She failed to connect with anyone but her narrow base, shy of a few old perverted men. So she fell on America's current worst racial issue: Our public acceptance of racism toward Arabs and bigotry against Islam. It didn't take long for her and her supporters to complete the circle back to the early whisper campaigns. The insinuation is that Obama is a radical black Muslim, the image they painted in the minds of racist Americans (this is a subset, not an indictment of us all) was that of the Black Panther with their fist in the air. It was just shy of screaming, "C'mon, people, he's black!"
Weeks later and the Republicans have not seriously censured this group of racists. They maintain their claim that Obama is "different," even as the differences between Palin and the average American become more and more clear. Recently in Iowa, Palin spent a solid minute merely talking over the crowd's growing anger and shouts of "he's a nigger!" Has she ever stopped to tell the crowd that she won't tolerate that, that it's not right and it's not how Republicans should act? No. That is why it keeps happening, that's why it has gotten worse.
I believe that what is happening is that we've flushed the racists out. They can only think to rally around Palin as their last bastion of hope against a black President. They are scared, because racism is born of fear and stupidity. These rallies are a support group for the racists. A last effort for them to vent their anger and fear before the coming unknown. In that, I believe the results we're seeing manage to slightly overstate the true weight of the racism problem in the Republican party, America, and the individual locations that host the events.
At the same time we can't give too much credit to the Democrats, or Obama supporters in general. The ability to ignore race due to the gravity of other issues does not signify the absence of racism. Indeed, there are plenty of voters who are simply voting "for the nigger." It's dangerous to ignore what this means. This indicates that racism is still a very real problem in our country, but even racists have their limits and very few people are shallow and stupid enough to allow race to be the most important issue.
So, if he wins what does it mean?
It means that we're less racist than almost anyone gave us credit for. Or, at the very least, that we do not let our racism affect our most important decisions. What is equally important is what it doesn't mean: This is not the end of racism in America. There is still a lot of evidence that we have a long way to go, and we need to seize the moment to make things better.
This does send a message to the world. I don't think it says that racism is dead. Instead, I think it says that we're growing up and we're moving on. It says that the slack jawed ignorant self-identifying redneck is no longer acceptable as our representative stereotype. We are more complex and diverse. Most importantly, I think it signifies that we care about how our country is perceived.
The worst possible outcome here would be if we declared victory prematurely. There isn't an exit strategy for the war on racism yet. Equality does not exist in our society, and what little equality there is has not yet reached a proper level of sustainability. Having an African American President does not invalidate Affirmative Action. This country is still a patriarchy ruled by the whites. The social systems that enforce that are still in place, let alone the governmental ones. We cannot throw up our hands in victory and give up. We cannot be complacent.
Now is the time for increased vigilance. This election has forced the dormant race issue to the surface. It is within our reach, we can grab it and attempt to fix it. We're 90 percent there, we just have the other 90 percent to worry about.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Subtle Bigotry: Hockey Mom
We've heard about the racism that the McCain campaign has stirred up, but few people have addressed when it started. I believe that it started as soon as Sarah Palin was named as his running mate. Specifically, the first time she claimed that she was "just one of [us]" and a "hockey mom."
Why is that racist? To answer that question we have to look at who hockey moms are. So, that's just what I did.
Luckily, I already had an idea of who they were, at least in this area. For a few years I helped my brother-in-law with his little league photography business. Among his clients were a few of the local hockey leagues. He also had football, baseball, basketball, soccer, and wrestling leagues for clients. He worked in communities on all ends of the income spectrum. As far as Northern New Jersey is concerned, I know the sports demographics well.
From this I tell you that hockey moms are earlier risers, able to tolerate prolonged periods in freezing temperatures, financially comfortable, SUV drivers, and as white as possible. Don't take my word for it, here is what MinnPost's Jay Weiner had to say about it:
Slate's income numbers are different, but they tell the same story:
If you read the full stories accompanying those quotes you will start to realize who the "us" is that Palin is one of. It doesn't encompass people of color. Nor does it include the poor, actually it mostly excludes the middle class. It does include someone who can afford thousands of dollars every year for their child to play a sport. Very few hockey moms are worried about how they're going to afford their next meal.
When Sarah Palin says that she is one of "us" and that Barack Obama isn't, in the same breath that she claims to just be a hockey mom, she is making a classist and racist statement. She is saying that we can't let a non-white person who had to work their way through school into the White House. She is professing her disgust for someone who would waste their time as a community organizer in low income areas.
It is a subtle attack, but one that should not be overlooked. At the very least, not anymore. Once her attacks became more overt, and her attempts to provoke a passionate racist reaction became more obvious, we had to look at just how deeply this runs in the campaign. It isn't merely a ploy that started a week or two ago, it's built right into the VP pick.
Why is that racist? To answer that question we have to look at who hockey moms are. So, that's just what I did.
Luckily, I already had an idea of who they were, at least in this area. For a few years I helped my brother-in-law with his little league photography business. Among his clients were a few of the local hockey leagues. He also had football, baseball, basketball, soccer, and wrestling leagues for clients. He worked in communities on all ends of the income spectrum. As far as Northern New Jersey is concerned, I know the sports demographics well.
From this I tell you that hockey moms are earlier risers, able to tolerate prolonged periods in freezing temperatures, financially comfortable, SUV drivers, and as white as possible. Don't take my word for it, here is what MinnPost's Jay Weiner had to say about it:
[T]he sport is predominantly Caucasian and, of course, extremely Northern in its geography. Among hockey, soccer and basketball, those who participate in hockey have the highest household income of $80,540. It's a more affluent sport and, perhaps, more Republican, although Minnesota hockey has a blue-collar strain to it.
Slate's income numbers are different, but they tell the same story:
[T]hey're almost certain to be largely Caucasian. Just 2 percent of National Hockey League players are black, despite the work of a "diversity task force" for both the professional and youth leagues. (The task force has held special camps in Wasilla, Alaska.) USA Hockey claims hockey-playing households earn nearly twice the U.S. average, with a median income of $99,200. According to polling by the Pew Research Center, a slice of registered voters that might be roughly equivalent to hockey moms—comprising white married women with kids under 18, incomes over $75,000 and living in the prime hockey-playing regions
If you read the full stories accompanying those quotes you will start to realize who the "us" is that Palin is one of. It doesn't encompass people of color. Nor does it include the poor, actually it mostly excludes the middle class. It does include someone who can afford thousands of dollars every year for their child to play a sport. Very few hockey moms are worried about how they're going to afford their next meal.
When Sarah Palin says that she is one of "us" and that Barack Obama isn't, in the same breath that she claims to just be a hockey mom, she is making a classist and racist statement. She is saying that we can't let a non-white person who had to work their way through school into the White House. She is professing her disgust for someone who would waste their time as a community organizer in low income areas.
It is a subtle attack, but one that should not be overlooked. At the very least, not anymore. Once her attacks became more overt, and her attempts to provoke a passionate racist reaction became more obvious, we had to look at just how deeply this runs in the campaign. It isn't merely a ploy that started a week or two ago, it's built right into the VP pick.
Monday, October 13, 2008
I Agree With Bill Kristol?
Bill Kristol now thinks that McCain should fire his campaign, something I called for in July. Not that I agree with Kristol on much else that he's saying, especially that a stunt like this could work this late in the campaign.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Troy, Ohio
On a more positive note, this is why Barack Obama will be our next President.
I have to say, I can picture Troy as I read those words. Why? Because I grew up a couple towns over. I could walk to Miami County from my house, it was about 400 feet from my door to a corn field that was in the county. My brother was once hit by a car while riding his bike on Route 202 in Miami county, he was thrown over the county line into Montgomery county.
When I lived in Ohio I considered myself an undecided Republican. I believed in the ideas that I was taught the party represented. I was told that they were right and just.*
My mother was heavily involved in their organization in my town. My father was an Independent, if he were around today he'd probably consider himself a Libertarian. That's just a guess, though. I was a product of my environment.
I used to be far more politically motivated, back when I had free time during the day and wasn't trying to feed a family. I would hand out fliers for the Republican party. I started working the polls at 17. At that age you're allowed to work at the county elections office doing ballot collection. It's manual labor. Once I turned 18 I took over my mother's spot at the local poll serving as a judge.
A Republican judge.
I served as a judge at several elections. After the first few I served as the presiding judge, which meant that I had to pick up the equipment before and deliver the ballots after.
Every polling place I've presided at was a Christian church. That didn't strike me as being so odd back then. Now I can only pause to wonder how a Muslim or a Jew feels walking into such a place to cast their ballot.
Now I'm quite happy to be out of Ohio. Every time I talk to someone who still lives there the outlook gets bleaker. The economy there is in shambles. No one knows who to trust or where to look.
It's good to see that change is happening. People need to stand up, and stand together. It is my hope that these organizations and connections live on beyond this election, and beyond the goal of getting one party or another into office. They should grow into organizations to push ideas up the chain and tell candidates what the voters really want and need. They should become the next generation of watchdogs who are ready to defect if they aren't being represented.
For now, I'll take solace in knowing that I won't have to hear another four years of Ohio taking the blame for electing the wrong candidate.
* This is not to say that I believe that all of the Democrats' ideas are right. I've since grown up and I realize that no party can represent every idea correctly. However, in that time I've learned a lot of good reasons why some Republican policies are foolish. Also, the underlying Christian Nationalist agenda within the Republican party is something that needs to be exorcised before I could consider their platform to be viable.
I have to say, I can picture Troy as I read those words. Why? Because I grew up a couple towns over. I could walk to Miami County from my house, it was about 400 feet from my door to a corn field that was in the county. My brother was once hit by a car while riding his bike on Route 202 in Miami county, he was thrown over the county line into Montgomery county.
When I lived in Ohio I considered myself an undecided Republican. I believed in the ideas that I was taught the party represented. I was told that they were right and just.*
My mother was heavily involved in their organization in my town. My father was an Independent, if he were around today he'd probably consider himself a Libertarian. That's just a guess, though. I was a product of my environment.
I used to be far more politically motivated, back when I had free time during the day and wasn't trying to feed a family. I would hand out fliers for the Republican party. I started working the polls at 17. At that age you're allowed to work at the county elections office doing ballot collection. It's manual labor. Once I turned 18 I took over my mother's spot at the local poll serving as a judge.
A Republican judge.
I served as a judge at several elections. After the first few I served as the presiding judge, which meant that I had to pick up the equipment before and deliver the ballots after.
Every polling place I've presided at was a Christian church. That didn't strike me as being so odd back then. Now I can only pause to wonder how a Muslim or a Jew feels walking into such a place to cast their ballot.
Now I'm quite happy to be out of Ohio. Every time I talk to someone who still lives there the outlook gets bleaker. The economy there is in shambles. No one knows who to trust or where to look.
It's good to see that change is happening. People need to stand up, and stand together. It is my hope that these organizations and connections live on beyond this election, and beyond the goal of getting one party or another into office. They should grow into organizations to push ideas up the chain and tell candidates what the voters really want and need. They should become the next generation of watchdogs who are ready to defect if they aren't being represented.
For now, I'll take solace in knowing that I won't have to hear another four years of Ohio taking the blame for electing the wrong candidate.
* This is not to say that I believe that all of the Democrats' ideas are right. I've since grown up and I realize that no party can represent every idea correctly. However, in that time I've learned a lot of good reasons why some Republican policies are foolish. Also, the underlying Christian Nationalist agenda within the Republican party is something that needs to be exorcised before I could consider their platform to be viable.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
That One
It has been a long political season. I am thankful that it will soon come to a close. This has been the most turbulent election I can remember, at least since 1992 with the on-and-off Perot campaign.
I believe that the right team is in the lead. They only need to play defense, and maybe shoot for a couple more points to fully secure the win. They cannot let their guard down yet, but their sideline can smile in satisfaction. What we've seen over the last few months has been a collapse of the opposition.
Specifically, if you couldn't already tell, I believe that Barack Obama will rightfully be the next President. John McCain has completely destroyed his brand. He's left himself with no choice but to run a dishonorable campaign over the coming month. It is a sad tribute to someone who once ran specifically on honor, dignity, and righteousness.
It comes down to two words, "that one."
When I heard him say that during the last debate I was astonished. I cannot recall a Presidential candidate with that little tact. I have heard no apology and no explanation for what was said. I can only assume that John McCain himself has lost his ability to be a gentleman. The only question now is whether his campaign is a reflection of him, or he a reflection of his campaign.
Thinking of the phrase, "that one," many things come to mind. Most notably are the times when my father would incredulously call my brother or I that way. "And that one over there wasn't helping anything," he would say. It was always used to scorn. It belittles and dehumanizes.
Yet, my father knew something that Mr. McCain must not. That is not a phrase to be used lightly. It is not to be used on those of equal or greater standing. A well mannered individual would never utter those words in public when any better label would do. My father knew that and he would never refer to my brother or I in such a manner outside the house.
Another interpretation would be that the quip was meant as subtle racism. I don't believe this is the case. However, I do believe that the questions and allegations are justifiable. I don't judge those who would accuse this man of resorting to racism during his fall from grace. I won't join them, though.
A more honorable man would step up and defend his words. He would explain that it is just an expression and declare that he did not intend to demean Senator Obama. Since that has not happened, we can only assume that his intent was dishonorable.
This is just one instance, though. Two words. Much more can be observed from the rest of the debate, and the rest of the campaign. Senator McCain's surrogates, especially Sarah Palin, have ventured down far less honorable paths. They are overtly questioning Mr. Obama's heritage, childhood, and service. In doing so, they insult all Americans who believe that freedom knows no such bounds, as well as those who put their country, and their communities, before themselves.
I believe that during these final days of this election cycle we should reflect on the grace and integrity shown by each of the candidates. Specifically, that which is shown by Barack Obama and that which John McCain has apparently lost.
I believe that the right team is in the lead. They only need to play defense, and maybe shoot for a couple more points to fully secure the win. They cannot let their guard down yet, but their sideline can smile in satisfaction. What we've seen over the last few months has been a collapse of the opposition.
Specifically, if you couldn't already tell, I believe that Barack Obama will rightfully be the next President. John McCain has completely destroyed his brand. He's left himself with no choice but to run a dishonorable campaign over the coming month. It is a sad tribute to someone who once ran specifically on honor, dignity, and righteousness.
It comes down to two words, "that one."
When I heard him say that during the last debate I was astonished. I cannot recall a Presidential candidate with that little tact. I have heard no apology and no explanation for what was said. I can only assume that John McCain himself has lost his ability to be a gentleman. The only question now is whether his campaign is a reflection of him, or he a reflection of his campaign.
Thinking of the phrase, "that one," many things come to mind. Most notably are the times when my father would incredulously call my brother or I that way. "And that one over there wasn't helping anything," he would say. It was always used to scorn. It belittles and dehumanizes.
Yet, my father knew something that Mr. McCain must not. That is not a phrase to be used lightly. It is not to be used on those of equal or greater standing. A well mannered individual would never utter those words in public when any better label would do. My father knew that and he would never refer to my brother or I in such a manner outside the house.
Another interpretation would be that the quip was meant as subtle racism. I don't believe this is the case. However, I do believe that the questions and allegations are justifiable. I don't judge those who would accuse this man of resorting to racism during his fall from grace. I won't join them, though.
A more honorable man would step up and defend his words. He would explain that it is just an expression and declare that he did not intend to demean Senator Obama. Since that has not happened, we can only assume that his intent was dishonorable.
This is just one instance, though. Two words. Much more can be observed from the rest of the debate, and the rest of the campaign. Senator McCain's surrogates, especially Sarah Palin, have ventured down far less honorable paths. They are overtly questioning Mr. Obama's heritage, childhood, and service. In doing so, they insult all Americans who believe that freedom knows no such bounds, as well as those who put their country, and their communities, before themselves.
I believe that during these final days of this election cycle we should reflect on the grace and integrity shown by each of the candidates. Specifically, that which is shown by Barack Obama and that which John McCain has apparently lost.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
What McCain Should Do
If McCain wants to keep Obama from running away with this election he should make a very public spectacle of firing top campaign management. On the other side of this he should immediately begin running a campaign that makes almost no negative mention of Obama, and his focus should be on his own integrity and commitment to the United States. His current campaign makes him seem old, outdated, and the wrong choice.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Mistaken Identity, Mistaken Outrage
As I've said before, I have an old email account that is fairly simple to type and remember. Unfortunately, that means that a few people through the years have mistakenly attributed my email address to someone else. As of right now someone thinks that they are emailing Jeff "Rusty" Rouston and someone else thinks that I'm a sheriff's deputy in Indiana.
The deputy mistake is mildly entertaining. If nothing else, I get an interesting insight into public event security planning. The Rusty mistake has been annoying more often than not, usually it's chain mail forwards that I would debunk for any friend. Last night, my Rusty persona received an email from Janet, who is apparently outraged by Obama's policies on defense spending, specifically one YouTube video posted with an anti-Obama slant and a blog post (linked from the email) that reinforces the same opinion.
I'm going to highlight some aspects of the video and Janet's reaction. It really is interesting, because I don't think I personally know anyone who would be so outraged by so little. First, here is Janet's reaction, which was originally in a 20 point bold red font:
Now the video she's responding to:
So, let's look at what Obama is saying: He will end a war that has become completely indefensible. He will cut unnecessary and unproven defense spending. He will try to slow other defense spending by limiting research into future weapons. Also, he will increase oversight of spending. Lastly, he will attempt diplomacy with other nations so that we don't need to spend so much because we won't have so many staunch and powerful enemies.
Uh, why is this scary? Notice that what he's said is that he'll get rid of unnecessary, unproven, and failed things. He's not saying that we won't have guns and missiles, or that we'll start defending our country with flower power. He also isn't promising any huge cuts in existing successful programs. No where did he claim that he would cut the military's size in half like George H. W. Bush started and Bill Clinton finished. He doesn't even promise to rid us of nuclear weapons, just to take them off of constant alert status. These aren't huge changes, unless you're a defense contractor or a warmonger.
Now, let's dig into what Janet said. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican you should be scared by Obama's stance is a ludicrous statement. He's repeating the same stance that many Democrats, and a few radical Republicans (I hate to mention the name, but Ron Paul springs to mind), have held for decades. More importantly, she unknowingly reveals the real problem she has: she wants to feel safe, she's far less concerned with being safe.
What she wants is the current security theater where we spend trillions to fight an attack that will never happen while we are in the middle of an economic crisis. To her, and people like her, we must pump money into a system where we seem imposing, instead of putting effort into a system where others recognize that we are not a threat. She's scared because Obama might provide real security, but it isn't security she can touch, it's security she simply must have faith in.
She, like so many others, has lost faith in people. When we have no faith in each other then we build barriers that look omnious, are dubiously effective, and serve to destroy others' faith in us. She didn't even have faith in me when I replied to her email last year and said that I'm not Jeff "Rusty" Rouston.
The deputy mistake is mildly entertaining. If nothing else, I get an interesting insight into public event security planning. The Rusty mistake has been annoying more often than not, usually it's chain mail forwards that I would debunk for any friend. Last night, my Rusty persona received an email from Janet, who is apparently outraged by Obama's policies on defense spending, specifically one YouTube video posted with an anti-Obama slant and a blog post (linked from the email) that reinforces the same opinion.
I'm going to highlight some aspects of the video and Janet's reaction. It really is interesting, because I don't think I personally know anyone who would be so outraged by so little. First, here is Janet's reaction, which was originally in a 20 point bold red font:
Whether you are democrate or republican..........This should scare you!!! It scares me!!! I want to continue feeling safe in my counrty. -janet
Now the video she's responding to:
So, let's look at what Obama is saying: He will end a war that has become completely indefensible. He will cut unnecessary and unproven defense spending. He will try to slow other defense spending by limiting research into future weapons. Also, he will increase oversight of spending. Lastly, he will attempt diplomacy with other nations so that we don't need to spend so much because we won't have so many staunch and powerful enemies.
Uh, why is this scary? Notice that what he's said is that he'll get rid of unnecessary, unproven, and failed things. He's not saying that we won't have guns and missiles, or that we'll start defending our country with flower power. He also isn't promising any huge cuts in existing successful programs. No where did he claim that he would cut the military's size in half like George H. W. Bush started and Bill Clinton finished. He doesn't even promise to rid us of nuclear weapons, just to take them off of constant alert status. These aren't huge changes, unless you're a defense contractor or a warmonger.
Now, let's dig into what Janet said. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican you should be scared by Obama's stance is a ludicrous statement. He's repeating the same stance that many Democrats, and a few radical Republicans (I hate to mention the name, but Ron Paul springs to mind), have held for decades. More importantly, she unknowingly reveals the real problem she has: she wants to feel safe, she's far less concerned with being safe.
What she wants is the current security theater where we spend trillions to fight an attack that will never happen while we are in the middle of an economic crisis. To her, and people like her, we must pump money into a system where we seem imposing, instead of putting effort into a system where others recognize that we are not a threat. She's scared because Obama might provide real security, but it isn't security she can touch, it's security she simply must have faith in.
She, like so many others, has lost faith in people. When we have no faith in each other then we build barriers that look omnious, are dubiously effective, and serve to destroy others' faith in us. She didn't even have faith in me when I replied to her email last year and said that I'm not Jeff "Rusty" Rouston.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
I Want My H1B
Well, not for me. I'd like one for my coworker. He's a great guy whose been here on a student visa and began interning for us a few years ago. I believe we're hoping to get him one of these visas and I really worry what will happen if we don't. He wants to stay and work with us, but he has to do that legally. This whole situation is a mess.
The funny thing is, we're not just looking for cheap labor or to replace all of our programmers. [At least I really hope not, because that would include me.] What we want to do is keep a good worker around. He's someone who positively contributes to the company and, I'm sure, the community. We think he's worth the effort to try to obtain a visa, so our HR people have been working on it.
Interestingly, he is not displacing American workers. Last year he took a four month hiatus from the company due to a lapse in his work visa. We tried to hire during this time, not to replace him, but to augment our team and to help fill the gap during his leave. After hundreds of resumes and dozens of interviews, we found no one who wanted the job and fit our needs. It isn't for lack of trying, we just need our guy.
He's far from the best programmer, and I've done everything in my power to ensure he's not the cheapest. The crux is that he's part of our team. I'd hate to see the team suffer because of stupid immigration laws and greedy, abusive companies. I'd hate to see my coworker suffer, too.
The federal government on Tuesday begins accepting H-1B visa applications. The government grants 65,000 visas by a lottery system — mostly to tech companies so they can hire highly skilled workers from outside the U.S. Last year, it received more than double that number in applications — on the first day.
The funny thing is, we're not just looking for cheap labor or to replace all of our programmers. [At least I really hope not, because that would include me.] What we want to do is keep a good worker around. He's someone who positively contributes to the company and, I'm sure, the community. We think he's worth the effort to try to obtain a visa, so our HR people have been working on it.
Interestingly, he is not displacing American workers. Last year he took a four month hiatus from the company due to a lapse in his work visa. We tried to hire during this time, not to replace him, but to augment our team and to help fill the gap during his leave. After hundreds of resumes and dozens of interviews, we found no one who wanted the job and fit our needs. It isn't for lack of trying, we just need our guy.
He's far from the best programmer, and I've done everything in my power to ensure he's not the cheapest. The crux is that he's part of our team. I'd hate to see the team suffer because of stupid immigration laws and greedy, abusive companies. I'd hate to see my coworker suffer, too.
April Fools! Finally Admitting The Truth About Red Light Cameras
MSNBC has a report on the recent trend of turning off traffic cameras. It seems that when they work as their proponents say they will then people don't break the law as much. When people don't break the law as much, then there is a decrease in tickets, meaning less money for the municipality.
City officials in Charlotte and Fayetteville, N.C., recently turned off all of their red light cameras, concluding that a state law diverting much of the revenue they generate in fines to schools meant their general funds were actually losing money, NBC affiliate WNCN of Raleigh reported.In Bolingbrook, Ill., meanwhile, officials ended their red light camera program after statistics showed a 40 percent drop in ticketable offenses.
If safety was the real concern, why turn these cameras off? More importantly, why not lengthen the yellow light? April Fools, America, red light cameras are only about the money.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Nader
Wouldn't Ralph Nader be doing a lot more for the country and the world if he ran for an office he had a chance at winning? I don't care who he does or doesn't sap votes from, but if he really wants to change things he should focus on actually getting elected. Were he to run for governor of one of the states he could have a real impact, and if his policies are as effective as we'd be led to believe then he would set a standard for other states to follow. At that point he could point to how he's helped a group of people and run a government, then he'd be an electable presidential candidate. Right now he's just wasting everyone's time, especially his own... and his time is more valuable than the average person's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)