I just heard the Rev. Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich being interviewed on Weekend Edition by Scott Simon. They were having a respectful conversation. They were working together to promote education.
They did not try to hide the fact that the two of them had serious disagreements. But they both said that what they were working for was so important, they needed to work together. I never thought I'd say that Gingrich and Sharpton are good role models for restrained, polite, bipartisan (and hopefull effective) work. But here we are..
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Speech
Pres. Obama gave a "back to school" speech a week ago. (Funnily enough, many districts weren't back to school yet. But oh well.) Many people have been protesting. Some silly things have been said on both sides.
Here is my take: it is true that GHWBush gave a speech to school kids, as did Reagan, and no one complained. It's not quite the same for a number of reasons, the biggest one being the availability of technology for watching the speech. When there is a computer in every classroom, that's not quite the same as having a few TVs for the whole school. More people could watch the speech.
Moreover, people did complain. GHWB spent $28,000 on what was called a campaign ad for a captive audience. Hearings were held in congress. People did complain. (See Byron York in the Washington Examiner for details.) For those who are saying, "I would have been fine if GWB had given a speech," I remind you that people were calling for his assassination, comparing him to Hitler, 35 % of democrats believed as of 2007 that he knew about and did not prevent, or planned the 9/11 attacks (See Jay Nordlinger at The National Review Online for details). I really don't believe that all of the people who are saying this so blithely would have let their kids sit for one of GWB's speeches.
The reason they wouldn't is the same problem that people have with Obama: people don't trust the president to give a non-political speech. Or at least, a not outwardly political speech---everything a politician does is by definition political. And in fact, I wouldn't want to have any politician, even one I agree with, give a speech to my kids without my having watched or read it first. I don't let my kids watch commercials without me, for goodness sake! People are too good at manipulation, and my kids are too sensitive to manipulation.
That said, the moment the text of the speech was released, there should have been no problem. I also think that schools who decided to show it on Friday made a good decision---parents who were interested could watch it or listen or find out about it, parents who were not were shirking their responsibility anyway. I was happy to let Eleanor watch it at school, no notice was sent out asking if we wanted to get her out of class, I don't think anyone kept their kids home.
Eleanor's impression is interesting. When I first asked if she had a speech from Obama in class today, she said she didn't remember. Then, "Oh, yeah, I think we did." I asked her what she remembered. She said she remembered the part when Obama said his mom would wake him up at 4:00 AM. I asked her why she did that. Eleanor said, "So he could learn."
I liked the speech. I wish people would listen and learn from it, instead of flying off the handle.
Here is my take: it is true that GHWBush gave a speech to school kids, as did Reagan, and no one complained. It's not quite the same for a number of reasons, the biggest one being the availability of technology for watching the speech. When there is a computer in every classroom, that's not quite the same as having a few TVs for the whole school. More people could watch the speech.
Moreover, people did complain. GHWB spent $28,000 on what was called a campaign ad for a captive audience. Hearings were held in congress. People did complain. (See Byron York in the Washington Examiner for details.) For those who are saying, "I would have been fine if GWB had given a speech," I remind you that people were calling for his assassination, comparing him to Hitler, 35 % of democrats believed as of 2007 that he knew about and did not prevent, or planned the 9/11 attacks (See Jay Nordlinger at The National Review Online for details). I really don't believe that all of the people who are saying this so blithely would have let their kids sit for one of GWB's speeches.
The reason they wouldn't is the same problem that people have with Obama: people don't trust the president to give a non-political speech. Or at least, a not outwardly political speech---everything a politician does is by definition political. And in fact, I wouldn't want to have any politician, even one I agree with, give a speech to my kids without my having watched or read it first. I don't let my kids watch commercials without me, for goodness sake! People are too good at manipulation, and my kids are too sensitive to manipulation.
That said, the moment the text of the speech was released, there should have been no problem. I also think that schools who decided to show it on Friday made a good decision---parents who were interested could watch it or listen or find out about it, parents who were not were shirking their responsibility anyway. I was happy to let Eleanor watch it at school, no notice was sent out asking if we wanted to get her out of class, I don't think anyone kept their kids home.
Eleanor's impression is interesting. When I first asked if she had a speech from Obama in class today, she said she didn't remember. Then, "Oh, yeah, I think we did." I asked her what she remembered. She said she remembered the part when Obama said his mom would wake him up at 4:00 AM. I asked her why she did that. Eleanor said, "So he could learn."
I liked the speech. I wish people would listen and learn from it, instead of flying off the handle.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Requiring health insurance
One of the ideas that is being batted around as we talk about universal coverage for health insurance is requiring people to have insurance. Some feel this is unreasonable, that people who are healthy (or who think they are healthy) shouldn't have to pay to be insured. I disagree.
First, we require people to carry insurance on their cars because no one plans to get into an accident. Even the best driver can get rear ended, even the healthiest person can have a gene for cancer or get in an accident or be exposed to a virus. If you decide not to carry health insurance, but then need it, you are cheating the rest of the covered people who pay, even when they are well.
I read someone say that insurance companies should be allowed to not cover pre-existing conditions because getting sick and then getting coverage is cheating the other people in the plan. That's why I think we need to get these people covered in the first place, so that no condition is pre-existing.
That said, I think that having extremely high deductible plans for some people makes sense. They shouldn't be for everyone, but a high deductible plan with a HSA makes sense for healthy people without kids, who don't expect any problems. They're still paying in to the pot, but they shouldn't have to get the deluxe plan.
One thing I've read in this debate that makes sense: The well pay for the sick, and we will all die one day. I think sometimes we forget this and behave as though we need to get something out of health care, or we need our wants taken care of. In reality, we'll all need it someday, and a bit of compassion is a good thing.
First, we require people to carry insurance on their cars because no one plans to get into an accident. Even the best driver can get rear ended, even the healthiest person can have a gene for cancer or get in an accident or be exposed to a virus. If you decide not to carry health insurance, but then need it, you are cheating the rest of the covered people who pay, even when they are well.
I read someone say that insurance companies should be allowed to not cover pre-existing conditions because getting sick and then getting coverage is cheating the other people in the plan. That's why I think we need to get these people covered in the first place, so that no condition is pre-existing.
That said, I think that having extremely high deductible plans for some people makes sense. They shouldn't be for everyone, but a high deductible plan with a HSA makes sense for healthy people without kids, who don't expect any problems. They're still paying in to the pot, but they shouldn't have to get the deluxe plan.
One thing I've read in this debate that makes sense: The well pay for the sick, and we will all die one day. I think sometimes we forget this and behave as though we need to get something out of health care, or we need our wants taken care of. In reality, we'll all need it someday, and a bit of compassion is a good thing.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Protecting Children
One of my favorite parenting blogs, Free Range Kids, has an article about the recent laws protecting kids from lead and other poisonous substances in toys. It sounds like a great idea, but the devil is in the details, as you will see by reading the article.
I can't add much to the discussion, except to slap my hand on my forehead and whimper. Michael had an interesting thought, which I will try to reproduce. The idea is that liberals think that more laws mean more protection for people, while conservatives think that if we just got rid of the laws people would behave well. I'm not sure that this is the case in all senarios, but in this case it certainly holds true.
The visual picture of libraries cordoning off their children's sections, Goodwill and such turning away children's toys, small businesses facing the decision of testing their handmade toys or shutting down, blows my mind. Michael's other idea was that we could resign from the human race----I wouldn't go that far, but I would point out that when we get something wrong the first time, we are obligated to try to fix it.
I can't add much to the discussion, except to slap my hand on my forehead and whimper. Michael had an interesting thought, which I will try to reproduce. The idea is that liberals think that more laws mean more protection for people, while conservatives think that if we just got rid of the laws people would behave well. I'm not sure that this is the case in all senarios, but in this case it certainly holds true.
The visual picture of libraries cordoning off their children's sections, Goodwill and such turning away children's toys, small businesses facing the decision of testing their handmade toys or shutting down, blows my mind. Michael's other idea was that we could resign from the human race----I wouldn't go that far, but I would point out that when we get something wrong the first time, we are obligated to try to fix it.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Working with your hands and your mind
Today on the Diane Reams show I heard Matthew B. Crawford speak about his book "Shop Class as Soulcraft." Then I saw a review of the book at the WSJ, so I figured I should really write some of my impressions.
Working with mind and hands as a SAHM. One of the things Mr. Crawford said that really impressed me was asking whether people who "work with their hands" don't work with their minds as well. He says that fixing motorcycles is hands on but involves his mind in solving problems. For me, using my brain is the only thing that keeps this job tolerable. On one level, it involves thinking about other things while doing mind numbing tasks---writing blog posts while washing dishes, for example. On another level, the problems that come up in parenting involve much creative problem solving. I'm not born organized, for example, so I have to come up with solutions to problems like "how can we make sure we don't forget shoes when we go out?" and "how can I tell when Eleanor should wash her hair?" (I'm still working on the second one...). Then there are the in the trenches child problems: how can I help Luke sleep? What is going on with Eleanor at school? How can I tell if Amanda is getting enough to eat? This is not mindless.
Making things at home, self reliance even when you have an intellectual job I have found that if Michael goes too long without making something, he gets antsy. So I let him add a spigot to our irrigation system, or buld a bench or a bed or desk, or fix some electrical problem. When I was studying math, one of my favorite pastimes was cross stitch, because I could see my progress on the project, instead of having non-physical progress to report. And also, I really hate solving problems at home by writing checks---if possible, I'd like to figure out how it works (or have Michael figure out how it works). Sometimes that leads to procrastination (like our garden...although I'm trying to work on that now). But sometimes I learn something new.
The WSJ best job article A while ago the Wall Street Journal published an article about the best jobs, and mathematician came up first. After looking at the article, what the study did was look at the jobs that the people doing the study wanted to have, and find the jobs that most fit them. My sister-in-law, who works as an OB nurse, had to disagree---I think she thinks her job is better than being a mathematician. The article is an example of the denigrating of physical work that is rampant in this country. Of course I like studying mathematics, but really it's not for everyone, and it's not even for me all of the time.
I think that if I ever get my "Parents with unused degrees" book club going, this would be one of the books we would read.
Working with mind and hands as a SAHM. One of the things Mr. Crawford said that really impressed me was asking whether people who "work with their hands" don't work with their minds as well. He says that fixing motorcycles is hands on but involves his mind in solving problems. For me, using my brain is the only thing that keeps this job tolerable. On one level, it involves thinking about other things while doing mind numbing tasks---writing blog posts while washing dishes, for example. On another level, the problems that come up in parenting involve much creative problem solving. I'm not born organized, for example, so I have to come up with solutions to problems like "how can we make sure we don't forget shoes when we go out?" and "how can I tell when Eleanor should wash her hair?" (I'm still working on the second one...). Then there are the in the trenches child problems: how can I help Luke sleep? What is going on with Eleanor at school? How can I tell if Amanda is getting enough to eat? This is not mindless.
Making things at home, self reliance even when you have an intellectual job I have found that if Michael goes too long without making something, he gets antsy. So I let him add a spigot to our irrigation system, or buld a bench or a bed or desk, or fix some electrical problem. When I was studying math, one of my favorite pastimes was cross stitch, because I could see my progress on the project, instead of having non-physical progress to report. And also, I really hate solving problems at home by writing checks---if possible, I'd like to figure out how it works (or have Michael figure out how it works). Sometimes that leads to procrastination (like our garden...although I'm trying to work on that now). But sometimes I learn something new.
The WSJ best job article A while ago the Wall Street Journal published an article about the best jobs, and mathematician came up first. After looking at the article, what the study did was look at the jobs that the people doing the study wanted to have, and find the jobs that most fit them. My sister-in-law, who works as an OB nurse, had to disagree---I think she thinks her job is better than being a mathematician. The article is an example of the denigrating of physical work that is rampant in this country. Of course I like studying mathematics, but really it's not for everyone, and it's not even for me all of the time.
I think that if I ever get my "Parents with unused degrees" book club going, this would be one of the books we would read.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Chanson (who is one of my favorite writers, although she also seems to be the jumping off point for many of my posts here) has a post titled "The Authoritarians,", where she mentions a book which talks about the religious right and their (broken) relationship with authority. I haven't read the book, I think I've heard the author speak on NPR, although I can't find any reference to it---perhaps I've heard John Dean speak about the author's research). Which is to say, I slightly remember being unimpressed, but I can't speak about the book, and I guess I'll just have to read it.
But what really bugged me about Chanson's post was her use of the word Teabaggers to describe...well, I don't really know who she was trying to describe. Maybe specifically the people at the protests, maybe the religious right, maybe just people who disagree with her (the last maybe is a cheap shot, sorry). She knows it's offensive, as is clear from the post she linked to at Main Street Plaza.
Later on in her post, she says, "...I'll bet many of you are thinking "Confirmation bias!!!" (Yep, I've been playing Internet long enough to anticipate your next move.)" But the truth is, the people who disagree with her enough to talk about confirmation bias stopped reading when she insulted them in the first line.
Which leads me to wonder, does she actually want to have a discussion with people she disagrees with, or does she just want to take cheap shots and dismiss them without having to listen to what they have to say? If it's the latter, it would work better if she would treat them with the respect she wants to be treated with---that seems pretty basic.
It also makes me think about name calling and the current cultural divide in America. In her mainstreet blog, she links to "Top 10 offensive signs in the teaparties", which are very offensive, but no one says that every sign was that offensive. But a few people offensively dismiss her views, and then she offensively dismisses their views (even people who disagree with the offensive signs) and so new people are brought into the cycle of name calling. This is not very clear, but it seems to me to be similar to the flame wars that were legendary on usenet, and to stem from the same source: it's a lot easier to disrespect an anonymous commentator than a real flesh and blood person...
But what really bugged me about Chanson's post was her use of the word Teabaggers to describe...well, I don't really know who she was trying to describe. Maybe specifically the people at the protests, maybe the religious right, maybe just people who disagree with her (the last maybe is a cheap shot, sorry). She knows it's offensive, as is clear from the post she linked to at Main Street Plaza.
Later on in her post, she says, "...I'll bet many of you are thinking "Confirmation bias!!!" (Yep, I've been playing Internet long enough to anticipate your next move.)" But the truth is, the people who disagree with her enough to talk about confirmation bias stopped reading when she insulted them in the first line.
Which leads me to wonder, does she actually want to have a discussion with people she disagrees with, or does she just want to take cheap shots and dismiss them without having to listen to what they have to say? If it's the latter, it would work better if she would treat them with the respect she wants to be treated with---that seems pretty basic.
It also makes me think about name calling and the current cultural divide in America. In her mainstreet blog, she links to "Top 10 offensive signs in the teaparties", which are very offensive, but no one says that every sign was that offensive. But a few people offensively dismiss her views, and then she offensively dismisses their views (even people who disagree with the offensive signs) and so new people are brought into the cycle of name calling. This is not very clear, but it seems to me to be similar to the flame wars that were legendary on usenet, and to stem from the same source: it's a lot easier to disrespect an anonymous commentator than a real flesh and blood person...
Monday, April 20, 2009
Protesting
I have been interested in the tea parties for a while---I admit that I read Instapundit, otherwise I would never have heard of them, since I don't watch live TV or listen to anything but NPR and classical radio. (I certainly never heard of it from conservative talk radio or Fox TV.)
It is interesting, but I am not really tempted to join in the protests. My view of protests has been influenced in an unflattering way by two examples I have seen in the past few years.
First was a man who came to my mathematics department, ostensibly to get a graduate degree in mathematics, but really to participate in politics on campus. (I know, this is probably not the real reason he came, but he certainly wasn't interested in attending classes or in passing tests.) He would often email the whole department (professors, administrators, adjuncts, graduate students) to let them know about a demonstration or teach in or gathering going on for one of his causes. I know some of the other students were interested in his posts, and in the mathematics department, deleting an email was easier than asking him not to spam the department mailing lists. The straw that broke the camel's back was when he emailed, rather breathlessly, "The Student Coalition has a demonstration going on today at 1 down in the pit. I don't know what they're protesting, but let's all go show our support." Just the idea that you would go demonstrate against something---anything---without even knowing what it was, still blows my mind, and I think it points out the superficiality of the "culture of protest."
The other incident that influenced my view of protest was in the run up to the huge demonstrations against the Iraq war. NPR had hours of reports from all over the country, from large demonstrations and small, and interviewed many of the participants. One of the interviews was with a woman who was taking a bus from a small college in the middle of the country to Washington. When asked why she was protesting, she said "The difference between us and the people who supported the war is that we actually think for ourselves, we don't just believe what our parents tell us." This typifies the arrogance I see in many protesters: the people who disagree with me haven't thought about the issues enough, and if they were to think for themselves, they would agree with me.
Do protests change minds? I know that when people marched for civil rights and were beaten, the video of their treatment changed minds. It is possible that the protests against the Vietnam war changed minds, although I think the fact that we couldn't win changed more minds. And I also think there is a danger that the language at these protests inflames rather than informs the debate. I have seen many sensible signs from the teaparty protests on conservative websites, and many offensive ones on liberal websites. During some anti-Bush protests, I saw the opposite---in other words, we see what we want to see (and what people with agendas want us to see).
I think facts will change minds, and if I thought protests brought out the facts to people who otherwise wouldn't have heard them, I'd protest more. But I don't think so, so I think I'll sit this round out.
It is interesting, but I am not really tempted to join in the protests. My view of protests has been influenced in an unflattering way by two examples I have seen in the past few years.
First was a man who came to my mathematics department, ostensibly to get a graduate degree in mathematics, but really to participate in politics on campus. (I know, this is probably not the real reason he came, but he certainly wasn't interested in attending classes or in passing tests.) He would often email the whole department (professors, administrators, adjuncts, graduate students) to let them know about a demonstration or teach in or gathering going on for one of his causes. I know some of the other students were interested in his posts, and in the mathematics department, deleting an email was easier than asking him not to spam the department mailing lists. The straw that broke the camel's back was when he emailed, rather breathlessly, "The Student Coalition has a demonstration going on today at 1 down in the pit. I don't know what they're protesting, but let's all go show our support." Just the idea that you would go demonstrate against something---anything---without even knowing what it was, still blows my mind, and I think it points out the superficiality of the "culture of protest."
The other incident that influenced my view of protest was in the run up to the huge demonstrations against the Iraq war. NPR had hours of reports from all over the country, from large demonstrations and small, and interviewed many of the participants. One of the interviews was with a woman who was taking a bus from a small college in the middle of the country to Washington. When asked why she was protesting, she said "The difference between us and the people who supported the war is that we actually think for ourselves, we don't just believe what our parents tell us." This typifies the arrogance I see in many protesters: the people who disagree with me haven't thought about the issues enough, and if they were to think for themselves, they would agree with me.
Do protests change minds? I know that when people marched for civil rights and were beaten, the video of their treatment changed minds. It is possible that the protests against the Vietnam war changed minds, although I think the fact that we couldn't win changed more minds. And I also think there is a danger that the language at these protests inflames rather than informs the debate. I have seen many sensible signs from the teaparty protests on conservative websites, and many offensive ones on liberal websites. During some anti-Bush protests, I saw the opposite---in other words, we see what we want to see (and what people with agendas want us to see).
I think facts will change minds, and if I thought protests brought out the facts to people who otherwise wouldn't have heard them, I'd protest more. But I don't think so, so I think I'll sit this round out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)