Why we need Health Care Reform?:
--
a.Rias
http://poli-babble.blogspot.com/
VP Harris Is Frustrated
4 years ago
Monday, July 20, 2009
Affirmative Action, Identity Politics and Sotomayor
Pat Buchanan vs. Rachel Maddow on Affirmative Action and Judge Sotomayor
Sotomayor Hearigns Spark Identity Politics
http://tinyurl.com/nxrykz
Last week, I had a discussion about affirmative action and Sotomayor with a co-worker who happens to be a white male from the suburbs. His point of view about Sotomayor's appointment was similar to that of Pat Buchanan; she is where she is because of affirmative action, wouldn't be in this position otherwise, and was considered over equally or better qualified people largely because of her identity as a Latina. When I asked him in what other ways the playing field could be leveled in order to balance minority and majority populations, he had no resolution and no idea how to approach it. I also got the impression that he didn't think anything should be done to level things--that things are as they are because they should be.
But when you think about it, do you blame him or anyone else who may think similarly? Who would willfully give up an opportunity at success for someone else to take? Someone who they don't know and won't know. Who wants bare a weighted vest in a race, to be forced to slow down, in order to allow others to catch up?
Then again, who would want to be prohibited from participating in the race, watching others run freely? Who would willfully subject themselves to centuries of "ownership" and second- (or third-) class citizenship, to forego personal ambitions of success, and have societal limitations placed upon you, all for the betterment of those who will use you to enhance only their own success?
Both are legitimate points of view.
Also, although my co-worker recognizes that discrimination has had an obvious presence in American history and culture, he doesn't understand difficulties that the minority population faces. But then again, how could he know what it is about? I don't know what it is to be a white male from the suburbs. He doesn't know what it's like to be a black male in the big city. But who said that we have to know what it is to be someone else. Perhaps what is more important is that we understand that we can have different points of view, and that we should be able to discuss them.
This period of time is a turning point in American history. Issues of race and discrimination (of gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, political affiliation, etc.) are all now mainstream societal issues today. All of the taboo conversation topics of the past are front page headlines today. Yes, it polarizes society. But instead of polarizing politically (Democrat vs. Republican), it polarizes people from topic to topic, from identifying issue to identifying issue, allowing a lot more room for overlapping identities and outlook on society, rather than one or the other. The issues are being laid on the table publically for us all to see, hear, discuss and develop opinions about. At the very least, I think, this is good for the growth of society in a "destroy and rebuild" kind of way. We don't necessarily need to know how to be someone else, but we should understand who they are.
Thoughts?
--
a.Rias
http://poli-babble.blogspot.com/
Sotomayor Hearigns Spark Identity Politics
http://tinyurl.com/nxrykz
Last week, I had a discussion about affirmative action and Sotomayor with a co-worker who happens to be a white male from the suburbs. His point of view about Sotomayor's appointment was similar to that of Pat Buchanan; she is where she is because of affirmative action, wouldn't be in this position otherwise, and was considered over equally or better qualified people largely because of her identity as a Latina. When I asked him in what other ways the playing field could be leveled in order to balance minority and majority populations, he had no resolution and no idea how to approach it. I also got the impression that he didn't think anything should be done to level things--that things are as they are because they should be.
But when you think about it, do you blame him or anyone else who may think similarly? Who would willfully give up an opportunity at success for someone else to take? Someone who they don't know and won't know. Who wants bare a weighted vest in a race, to be forced to slow down, in order to allow others to catch up?
Then again, who would want to be prohibited from participating in the race, watching others run freely? Who would willfully subject themselves to centuries of "ownership" and second- (or third-) class citizenship, to forego personal ambitions of success, and have societal limitations placed upon you, all for the betterment of those who will use you to enhance only their own success?
Both are legitimate points of view.
Also, although my co-worker recognizes that discrimination has had an obvious presence in American history and culture, he doesn't understand difficulties that the minority population faces. But then again, how could he know what it is about? I don't know what it is to be a white male from the suburbs. He doesn't know what it's like to be a black male in the big city. But who said that we have to know what it is to be someone else. Perhaps what is more important is that we understand that we can have different points of view, and that we should be able to discuss them.
This period of time is a turning point in American history. Issues of race and discrimination (of gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, political affiliation, etc.) are all now mainstream societal issues today. All of the taboo conversation topics of the past are front page headlines today. Yes, it polarizes society. But instead of polarizing politically (Democrat vs. Republican), it polarizes people from topic to topic, from identifying issue to identifying issue, allowing a lot more room for overlapping identities and outlook on society, rather than one or the other. The issues are being laid on the table publically for us all to see, hear, discuss and develop opinions about. At the very least, I think, this is good for the growth of society in a "destroy and rebuild" kind of way. We don't necessarily need to know how to be someone else, but we should understand who they are.
Thoughts?
--
a.Rias
http://poli-babble.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
National Debt for Beginners
For anyone puzzled by economic catch phrases, code words and terms, I present (really NPR presents):
National Debt for Beginners
This is a good, concise piece putting national debt into context.
With the annual U.S. government deficit recently projected at $1.2 trillion (not counting additional spending expected from the fiscal stimulus package now before Congress) and President Barack Obama warning about "red ink as far as the eye can see," government debt is once again near the top of the policy agenda. Which raises the question: What is government debt? And what's so bad about it?
National Debt for Beginners
--
a.Rias
http://poli-babble.blogspot.com/
National Debt for Beginners
This is a good, concise piece putting national debt into context.
With the annual U.S. government deficit recently projected at $1.2 trillion (not counting additional spending expected from the fiscal stimulus package now before Congress) and President Barack Obama warning about "red ink as far as the eye can see," government debt is once again near the top of the policy agenda. Which raises the question: What is government debt? And what's so bad about it?
National Debt for Beginners
--
a.Rias
http://poli-babble.blogspot.com/
Students as Investments?
We all may (or may not) know that the President wants to see an evolution of the education system, where merit and quality are enhanced for both teachers and students.
I got this from the Freakonomics blog from the NY Times (from Planet Money blog on NPR)
--
What if teachers were paid based on the future income their students make. For example, student A grows up to make 100k a year. We look at the records and find the 20 teachers that taught student A and compensate them based on that. Compensation could be based on number of months spent with student.
That way the students would turn into "investments" for the teachers.
--
I'm curious what you all think about this. Some questions come to mind:
1. What benefits could come out of compensating a teacher for a student's future earning potential?
2. What are the downfalls (could this benefit some teachers of areas that generally earn more than others [ie: arts teachers versus business teachers]).
3. Is this method of compensation flawed from the beginning (equating quality of education with money earned--some careers just don't pay as much as others, regardless of how talented you are)?
4. How else can student/teacher productivity be related to encourage high quality, meaningful education and educators?
--
a.Rias
http://poli-babble.blogspot.com/
I got this from the Freakonomics blog from the NY Times (from Planet Money blog on NPR)
--
What if teachers were paid based on the future income their students make. For example, student A grows up to make 100k a year. We look at the records and find the 20 teachers that taught student A and compensate them based on that. Compensation could be based on number of months spent with student.
That way the students would turn into "investments" for the teachers.
--
I'm curious what you all think about this. Some questions come to mind:
1. What benefits could come out of compensating a teacher for a student's future earning potential?
2. What are the downfalls (could this benefit some teachers of areas that generally earn more than others [ie: arts teachers versus business teachers]).
3. Is this method of compensation flawed from the beginning (equating quality of education with money earned--some careers just don't pay as much as others, regardless of how talented you are)?
4. How else can student/teacher productivity be related to encourage high quality, meaningful education and educators?
--
a.Rias
http://poli-babble.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
