In too many situations, the extremes dominate the debate and make everything seem like a binary world. Education reform is one of them. On one side we have the people that blame teachers and think we can make drastic improvements if we weaken the teachers unions. On the other side we have people who think teacher reforms will do nothing and more funding is the only solution.
Who represents the reasonable middle (or slightly left of middle)? I think unions should give ground. I think tenure is unnecessary and keeps ineffective teachers in the classroom. And I kind of think teacher pay should be more flexible than simple arithmetic based on experience (although experience is definitely important).
But I also think you get what you pay for. If we want big gains in education, we need to spend more money. We need to decrease class sizes and spend more on extras (art, music, drama, second languages, etc), after school programs, and teacher development.
Unfortunately, it seems that neither side is giving ground. And worse, the side that is winning is blaming teachers (and maybe getting some contract changes - maybe) while allowing budgets to get cut. I worry for our future.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
More Abortion Nonsense
There is a billboard in New York City that says, "The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb." There are so many things wrong with this it is hard to know where to start.
But let's start with the most obvious. The groups that sponsor and support this add care little for the safety or well-being for African-Americans. If they did, they would have adds that call attention to gun violence, increased and smarter police patrols, incarceration rates, food insecurity, educational needs, foster care, housing and the need for more jobs in low income neighborhoods people of color.
Instead, these groups care about the fetus but not the child, teenager or adult. Fortunately I think most reasonable people recognize this hypocrisy.
Related to that, the group doesn't even bother think about why abortions might be higher among lower income women in general and lower income women of color. In fact, if they really were concerned, they could strongly advocate for programs that would make raising a child easier for low income mothers and therefore make it less likely that women would feel the need to abort a pregnancy.
If they didn't want to do that, they could at the very least support family planning - even non-abortion family planning like sex education and increased availability of birth control options.
These groups are not interested in any of that. Instead, they want to use people of color as pawns in their righteous message.
The message is also appalling because of where it places the blame. While it tries to highlight the black fetuses as victims, it is also implying that black mothers are the killers. With abortion, you can't have one without the other (at least from the pro-life side). In other words, the group is telling the public that abortion is more often carried out by evil black mothers.
This may not be eugenics but it certainly seems to be saying that black people are more evil. Either that, or they would agree with my earlier point that low income people need more support than they currently receive - not just counseling, but financial support.
I hope the backlash is strong enough that they learn in the future not to blithely trade on racial issues for reasons that benefit themselves and their agenda. And if they want to help communities of color, they should start working there and ask the people what they want and need. This hypocrisy, blame and condescension is appalling.
But let's start with the most obvious. The groups that sponsor and support this add care little for the safety or well-being for African-Americans. If they did, they would have adds that call attention to gun violence, increased and smarter police patrols, incarceration rates, food insecurity, educational needs, foster care, housing and the need for more jobs in low income neighborhoods people of color.
Instead, these groups care about the fetus but not the child, teenager or adult. Fortunately I think most reasonable people recognize this hypocrisy.
Related to that, the group doesn't even bother think about why abortions might be higher among lower income women in general and lower income women of color. In fact, if they really were concerned, they could strongly advocate for programs that would make raising a child easier for low income mothers and therefore make it less likely that women would feel the need to abort a pregnancy.
If they didn't want to do that, they could at the very least support family planning - even non-abortion family planning like sex education and increased availability of birth control options.
These groups are not interested in any of that. Instead, they want to use people of color as pawns in their righteous message.
The message is also appalling because of where it places the blame. While it tries to highlight the black fetuses as victims, it is also implying that black mothers are the killers. With abortion, you can't have one without the other (at least from the pro-life side). In other words, the group is telling the public that abortion is more often carried out by evil black mothers.
This may not be eugenics but it certainly seems to be saying that black people are more evil. Either that, or they would agree with my earlier point that low income people need more support than they currently receive - not just counseling, but financial support.
I hope the backlash is strong enough that they learn in the future not to blithely trade on racial issues for reasons that benefit themselves and their agenda. And if they want to help communities of color, they should start working there and ask the people what they want and need. This hypocrisy, blame and condescension is appalling.
Party Like It's 1848
So the conventional wisdom of the moment seems to be that the unrest in the Middle East right now is most similar to the revolutions / protests of 1848*. If so, our expectation should be that the revolutions won't be successful in the short term but in a couple decades will lead to more stability for these countries.
I am partial to this analysis because it fits my more long term view of things. Stable democracies don't happen overnight. If you look at our own history, we needed two attempts to create a decent constitution and form of government and we had a major civil war 84 years after our independence.
In fact, this Foreign Policy post shows why the color revolutions from a few years ago have not shown immediate results and have even regressed. However, I think these will also have long term successes.
Basically, I think we should be prepared for the fact that some of these revolutions will regress (assuming they are successful in getting rid of their leaders). But we cannot and should not lose hope and we shouldn't give up on democracy. I just fear that if our hopes are too high and then we are inevitably let down, next time we'll think that the country isn't ready for democracy and we'll be unwilling to support it.
This fear is especially acute in situations when supporting democracy might be less appealing - like another Egypt. If our bar is too high, next time we might not support an Egypt. We must keep faith that democracy works in the long term and at every step we need to support it. In the long term, we'll be rewarded.
*Quite a surprise to me that there was actually a smart and useful Slate post.
I am partial to this analysis because it fits my more long term view of things. Stable democracies don't happen overnight. If you look at our own history, we needed two attempts to create a decent constitution and form of government and we had a major civil war 84 years after our independence.
In fact, this Foreign Policy post shows why the color revolutions from a few years ago have not shown immediate results and have even regressed. However, I think these will also have long term successes.
Basically, I think we should be prepared for the fact that some of these revolutions will regress (assuming they are successful in getting rid of their leaders). But we cannot and should not lose hope and we shouldn't give up on democracy. I just fear that if our hopes are too high and then we are inevitably let down, next time we'll think that the country isn't ready for democracy and we'll be unwilling to support it.
This fear is especially acute in situations when supporting democracy might be less appealing - like another Egypt. If our bar is too high, next time we might not support an Egypt. We must keep faith that democracy works in the long term and at every step we need to support it. In the long term, we'll be rewarded.
*Quite a surprise to me that there was actually a smart and useful Slate post.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Sophistry from Huckabee
So Mike Huckabee thinks abortion is slavery. Let me tell you why that is a stupid analogy.
Let's start with the source of the major disagreement between pro-life and pro-choice folks - the moment that life begins. The pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception - that when the sperm fertilizes the egg, God inserts a soul into the zygote. After this amazing act, God then disappears and allows that zygote to develop into a person that might lead a happy life or might die a horrible death from famine, war or genocide.
Pro-choice folks on the other hand might not have a bright line for when life begins, but feel that it is not right at conception. Maybe it is after the first trimester or maybe it is later and at the point when the fetus could sustain itself outside the womb.
So if we take the pro-life position as the starting point, then we can determine an accurate analogy. If life begins at conception, then terminating a pregnancy is ending a life. In other words it is murder. In fact, that is what pro-lifers have been saying for a long time.
Mike Huckabee wants us to believe that it isn't murder but slavery. If I understand slavery right, it is the imprisonment of another person for the purposes of free labor. It seems to me that giving birth to a child then putting it to work might be slavery. But killing the fetus denies it the ability to do work - force or unforced.
So why is Mike Huckabee moving away from calling it murder and saying it is slavery? I have some thoughts. First, I think he realizes that equating it to murder hasn't won the argument (because most people don't agree that life begins at conception).
So if the murder argument isn't working, Huckabee must have decided that he needs another more provocative analogy, even if the logic is insanely tortured and the new comparison is less appalling than murder.
Second, maybe he thinks some people of color, maybe those that are religious, will buy this argument. In other words, he thinks this seemingly clever turn of words will bring new people who have a history with slavery to support the pro-life cause.
Third, he probably thinks it is a clever trap for liberals. For so long liberals have been trying to make southern conservatives feel guilty about slavery. If he can convince people that abortion is slavery, liberals have to either say slavery isn't that bad, or that abortion is wrong.
No matter his reasons, his argument is clearly sophistry. But that isn't Huckabee's biggest problem with this abortion argument.
Huckabee's real problem is that he is looking for an easy win (with obviously flawed logic) instead of putting in the hard work on this issue to change minds. No matter what you call abortion (slavery or murder), the only way people will come to the pro-life side is if they believe that life begins at conception.
That of course is a tremendous challenge (because it goes against science and what feels like common sense). And it is a challenge Huckabee doesn't seem up to.
Let's start with the source of the major disagreement between pro-life and pro-choice folks - the moment that life begins. The pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception - that when the sperm fertilizes the egg, God inserts a soul into the zygote. After this amazing act, God then disappears and allows that zygote to develop into a person that might lead a happy life or might die a horrible death from famine, war or genocide.
Pro-choice folks on the other hand might not have a bright line for when life begins, but feel that it is not right at conception. Maybe it is after the first trimester or maybe it is later and at the point when the fetus could sustain itself outside the womb.
So if we take the pro-life position as the starting point, then we can determine an accurate analogy. If life begins at conception, then terminating a pregnancy is ending a life. In other words it is murder. In fact, that is what pro-lifers have been saying for a long time.
Mike Huckabee wants us to believe that it isn't murder but slavery. If I understand slavery right, it is the imprisonment of another person for the purposes of free labor. It seems to me that giving birth to a child then putting it to work might be slavery. But killing the fetus denies it the ability to do work - force or unforced.
So why is Mike Huckabee moving away from calling it murder and saying it is slavery? I have some thoughts. First, I think he realizes that equating it to murder hasn't won the argument (because most people don't agree that life begins at conception).
So if the murder argument isn't working, Huckabee must have decided that he needs another more provocative analogy, even if the logic is insanely tortured and the new comparison is less appalling than murder.
Second, maybe he thinks some people of color, maybe those that are religious, will buy this argument. In other words, he thinks this seemingly clever turn of words will bring new people who have a history with slavery to support the pro-life cause.
Third, he probably thinks it is a clever trap for liberals. For so long liberals have been trying to make southern conservatives feel guilty about slavery. If he can convince people that abortion is slavery, liberals have to either say slavery isn't that bad, or that abortion is wrong.
No matter his reasons, his argument is clearly sophistry. But that isn't Huckabee's biggest problem with this abortion argument.
Huckabee's real problem is that he is looking for an easy win (with obviously flawed logic) instead of putting in the hard work on this issue to change minds. No matter what you call abortion (slavery or murder), the only way people will come to the pro-life side is if they believe that life begins at conception.
That of course is a tremendous challenge (because it goes against science and what feels like common sense). And it is a challenge Huckabee doesn't seem up to.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Is the Mandate Unconstitutional?
The answer is a resounding no according to David Cole. You should read the whole argument, but let me see if I can summarize correctly.
First, although the people that oppose health reform, and the mandate particularly, seem to do so form a libertarian perspective, there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees the freedom these people want. Instead, their only hope is to appeal to state's rights. In fact, the states themselves clearly have the right to have an individual mandate.
So does state's rights argument work? No. The necessary and proper clause, as it has been interpreted since the New Deal allows Congress to pass such a mandate, as does the interstate commerce clause. The courts have found that the federal government has the ability to regulate individual interactions if they affect bigger interstate interactions. Marijuana laws and laws restricting growing of wheat for individual consumption show that the federal government can regulate people who are not ingaging in the market.
Cole goes on to say that the federal judge that struck down the law did so using jurisprudence that is no longer in use. He therefore thinks the law will be upheld and not by a close vote.
While I am convinced by Cole's argument, I am only moderately reassured. What seems like clear cut legal reasoning, the Supreme Court, especially one as conservative as this one is, is capable of finding arguments for political decisions. My gut is that this decision comes down 5-4, hopefully with Kennedy deciding in favor of the law. Anything more than that is too much to expect.
First, although the people that oppose health reform, and the mandate particularly, seem to do so form a libertarian perspective, there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees the freedom these people want. Instead, their only hope is to appeal to state's rights. In fact, the states themselves clearly have the right to have an individual mandate.
So does state's rights argument work? No. The necessary and proper clause, as it has been interpreted since the New Deal allows Congress to pass such a mandate, as does the interstate commerce clause. The courts have found that the federal government has the ability to regulate individual interactions if they affect bigger interstate interactions. Marijuana laws and laws restricting growing of wheat for individual consumption show that the federal government can regulate people who are not ingaging in the market.
Cole goes on to say that the federal judge that struck down the law did so using jurisprudence that is no longer in use. He therefore thinks the law will be upheld and not by a close vote.
While I am convinced by Cole's argument, I am only moderately reassured. What seems like clear cut legal reasoning, the Supreme Court, especially one as conservative as this one is, is capable of finding arguments for political decisions. My gut is that this decision comes down 5-4, hopefully with Kennedy deciding in favor of the law. Anything more than that is too much to expect.
Glenn Beck is not Harmless
For a long time I thought Glenn Beck was just harmless fool making poor arguments about the evils of liberals. He would boil liberalism to its most crazy state, then oversimplify something evil in a way that made it seem the same as liberalism. But I wasn't worried or that annoyed because painting all liberals with a crazy brush wasn't dangerous.
But I am starting to feel differently now. I don't pay enough attention to Glenn Beck to know whether he has changed or whether I have just learned more about him. Either way, his conspiracy theories now feel pretty dangerous.
Lately, I have heard him proclaiming a number of crazy conspiracies. First, he said that George Soros is plotting to take over the United States government. Second, he has said that a communist academic wants to cause capitalism to collapse and has called for violent protests. Third, he has said that Shiite Muslims want to bring back the 12th Iman, who he says is actually the anti-Christ.
In the first two scenarios, he is suggesting that a person is a grave threat to our government. In the last, he is saying a broad religious group worships the devil and wants to bring about the end of days. In all cases, he is saying that the group is dangerous and implying that we might need to use violence against these people.
Let's compare this to Sarah Palin and the earlier discussion this country was having over rhetoric. Palin's crosshairs map raised a lot of eyebrows (mostly after the fact). However, Palin did not intend, nor would a reasonable person think she intended, to suggest that those people should be killed or were any sort of threat.
However, Glenn Beck is saying that these people are a threat. That is explicitly what he is saying. The only way this isn't dangerous is if we assume that most people will understand that he is stupid and crazy and therefore won't believe what he is saying. And part of me thinks this is true.
But I don't know if we should take this for granted. And the fact that some of his targets have received death threats means there are at least some people that believe Glenn Beck and think these people represent a threat.
Above anyone else on TV, Glenn Beck's rhetoric and conspiracy theories might actually be dangerous. It should be stopped. Instead, I think our only hope is that he continue to lost viewers as people realize that he is a big bucket of crazy and stupid.
But I am starting to feel differently now. I don't pay enough attention to Glenn Beck to know whether he has changed or whether I have just learned more about him. Either way, his conspiracy theories now feel pretty dangerous.
Lately, I have heard him proclaiming a number of crazy conspiracies. First, he said that George Soros is plotting to take over the United States government. Second, he has said that a communist academic wants to cause capitalism to collapse and has called for violent protests. Third, he has said that Shiite Muslims want to bring back the 12th Iman, who he says is actually the anti-Christ.
In the first two scenarios, he is suggesting that a person is a grave threat to our government. In the last, he is saying a broad religious group worships the devil and wants to bring about the end of days. In all cases, he is saying that the group is dangerous and implying that we might need to use violence against these people.
Let's compare this to Sarah Palin and the earlier discussion this country was having over rhetoric. Palin's crosshairs map raised a lot of eyebrows (mostly after the fact). However, Palin did not intend, nor would a reasonable person think she intended, to suggest that those people should be killed or were any sort of threat.
However, Glenn Beck is saying that these people are a threat. That is explicitly what he is saying. The only way this isn't dangerous is if we assume that most people will understand that he is stupid and crazy and therefore won't believe what he is saying. And part of me thinks this is true.
But I don't know if we should take this for granted. And the fact that some of his targets have received death threats means there are at least some people that believe Glenn Beck and think these people represent a threat.
Above anyone else on TV, Glenn Beck's rhetoric and conspiracy theories might actually be dangerous. It should be stopped. Instead, I think our only hope is that he continue to lost viewers as people realize that he is a big bucket of crazy and stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)