If you have been absent 5 or more times, I dropped you final grade by half a letter grade. Example - your average from your paper and final is a B, but you were absent
7 times, therefore your final grade drops to a B-
Any questions about your grades see me in B155.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Reading Assignment for Tuesday May 26
Poor? Pay Up.
Having Little Money Often Means No Car, No Washing Machine, No Checking Account And No Break From Fees and High Prices
By DeNeen L. Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 18, 2009
You have to be rich to be poor.
That's what some people who have never lived below the poverty line don't understand.
Put it another way: The poorer you are, the more things cost. More in money, time, hassle, exhaustion, menace. This is a fact of life that reality television and magazines don't often explain.
So we'll explain it here. Consider this a primer on the economics of poverty.
"The poor pay more for a gallon of milk; they pay more on a capital basis for inferior housing," says Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.). "The poor and 100 million who are struggling for the middle class actually end up paying more for transportation, for housing, for health care, for mortgages. They get steered to subprime lending. . . . The poor pay more for things middle-class America takes for granted."
Poverty 101: We'll start with the basics.
Like food: You don't have a car to get to a supermarket, much less to Costco or Trader Joe's, where the middle class goes to save money. You don't have three hours to take the bus. So you buy groceries at the corner store, where a gallon of milk costs an extra dollar.
A loaf of bread there costs you $2.99 for white. For wheat, it's $3.79. The clerk behind the counter tells you the gallon of leaking milk in the bottom of the back cooler is $4.99. She holds up four fingers to clarify. The milk is beneath the shelf that holds beef bologna for $3.79. A pound of butter sells for $4.49. In the back of the store are fruits and vegetables. The green peppers are shriveled, the bananas are more brown than yellow, the oranges are picked over.
(At a Safeway on Bradley Boulevard in Bethesda, the wheat bread costs $1.19, and white bread is on sale for $1. A gallon of milk costs $3.49 -- $2.99 if you buy two gallons. A pound of butter is $2.49. Beef bologna is on sale, two packages for $5.)
Prices in urban corner stores are almost always higher, economists say. And sometimes, prices in supermarkets in poorer neighborhoods are higher. Many of these stores charge more because the cost of doing business in some neighborhoods is higher. "First, they are probably paying more on goods because they don't get the low wholesale price that bigger stores get," says Bradley R. Schiller, a professor emeritus at American University and the author of "The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination."
"The real estate is higher. The fact that volume is low means fewer sales per worker. They make fewer dollars of revenue per square foot of space. They don't end up making more money. Every corner grocery store wishes they had profits their customers think they have."
According to the Census Bureau, more than 37 million people in the country live below the poverty line. The poor know these facts of life. These facts become their lives.
Time is money, they say, and the poor pay more in time, too.
When you are poor, you don't have the luxury of throwing a load into the washing machine and then taking your morning jog while it cycles. You wait until Monday afternoon, when the laundromat is most likely to be empty, and you put all of that laundry from four kids into four heaps, bundle it in sheets, load a cart and drag it to the corner.
"If I had my choice, I would have a washer and a dryer," says Nya Oti, 37, a food-service worker who lives in Brightwood. She stands on her toes to reach the top of a washer in the laundromat on Georgia Avenue NW and pours in detergent. The four loads of laundry will take her about two hours. A soap opera is playing loudly on the television hanging from the ceiling. A man comes in talking to himself. He drags his loads of dirty sheets and mattress pads and dumps them one by one into the machines next to Oti.
She does not seem to notice. She is talking about other costs of poverty. "My car broke down this weekend, and it took a lot of time getting on the bus, standing on the bus stop. It was a waste of a whole lot of times. Waiting. The transfer to the different bus."
When she has her car, she drives to Maryland, where she shops for her groceries at Shoppers Food Warehouse or Save-A-Lot, where she says some items are cheaper and some are higher. "They have a way of getting you in there on a bargain. You go in for something cheap, but something else is more expensive." She buys bags of oranges or apples, but not the organic kind. "Organic is too much," she says.
"When you are poor, you substitute time for money," says Randy Albelda, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. "You have to work a lot of hours and still not make a lot of money. You get squeezed, and your money is squeezed."
The poor pay more in hassle: the calls from the bill collectors, the landlord, the utility company. So they spend money to avoid the hassle. The poor pay for caller identification because it gives them peace of mind to weed out calls from bill collectors.
The rich have direct deposit for their paychecks. The poor have check-cashing and payday loan joints, which cost time and money. Payday advance companies say they are providing an essential service to people who most need them. Their critics say they are preying on people who are the most "economically vulnerable."
"As you've seen with the financial services industry, if people can cut a profit, they do it," Blumenauer says. "The poor pay more for financial services. A lot of people who are 'unbanked' pay $3 for a money order to pay their electric bill. They pay a 2 percent check-cashing fee because they don't have bank services. The reasons? Part of it is lack of education. But part of it is because people target them. There is evidence that credit-card mills have recently started trolling for the poor. They are targeting the recently bankrupt."
Outside the ACE check-cashing office on Georgia Avenue in Petworth, Harrison Blakeney, 67, explains a hard financial lesson of poverty. He uses the check-cashing store to pay his telephone bill. The store charges 10 percent to take Blakeney's money and send the payment to the phone company. That 10 percent becomes what it costs him to get his payment to the telephone company on time. Ten percent is more than the cost of a stamp. But, Blakeney says: "I don't have time to mail it. You come here and get it done. Then you don't get charged with the late fee."
Blakeney, a retired auto mechanic who now lives on a fixed income, says: "We could send the payment ahead of time but sometimes you don't have money ahead of time. That's why you pay extra money to get them to send it."
Blakeney, wearing a purple jacket, leans on his cane. He has no criticism for the check-cashing place. "That's how they make their money," he says. "I don't care about the charge."
Just then, Lenwood Brooks walks out of the check-cashing place. He is angry about how much it just cost him to cash a check. "They charged me $15 to cash a $300 check," he says.
You ask him why he didn't just go to a bank. But his story is as complicated as the various reasons people find themselves in poverty and in need of a check-cashing joint. He says he lost his driver's license and now his regular bank "won't recognize me as a human. That's why I had to come here. It's a rip-off, but it's like a convenience store. You pay for the convenience."
Then there's credit. The poor don't have it. What they had was a place like First Cash Advance in D.C.'s Manor Park neighborhood, where a neon sign once flashed "PAYDAY ADVANCE." Through the bulletproof glass, a cashier in white eyeliner and long white nails explained what you needed to get an advance on your paycheck -- a pay stub, a legitimate ID, a checkbook. This meant you're doing well enough to have a checking account, but you're still poor.
And if you qualify, the fee for borrowing $300 is $46.50.
That was not for a year -- it's for seven days, although the terms can vary. How much interest will this payday loan cost you? In simple terms, the company is charging a $15.50 fee for every $100 that you borrow. On your $300 payday loan -- borrowed for a term of seven days -- the effective annual percentage rate is 806 percent.
The cashier says that what you do is write First Cash Advance a check for $345.50 plus another $1 fee, and it will give you $300 in cash upfront. It holds the check until you get paid. Then you bring in $346.50 and it returns your check. Or it cashes the check and keeps your $346.50, or you have the option of extending the loan with additional fees. You'll be out $46.50, which you'd rather have for the late fee on the rent you didn't pay on time. Or the gas bill you swear you paid last month but the gas company swears it never got.
But now the payday advance place has closed, shuttered by metal doors. A sign in the front door says the business has moved. After the D.C. government passed a law requiring payday lenders to abide by a 24-percent limit on the annual percentage rate charged on a loan, many such stores in the District closed. Now advocates for the poor say they are concerned about other businesses that prey on poor people by extending loans in exchange for car titles. If a person does not pay back the loan, then the business becomes the owner of the car.
All these costs can lead the poor to a collective depression. Douglas J. Besharov, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says: "There are social costs of being poor, though it is not clear where the cause and effect is. We know for a fact that on certain measures, people who are poor are often more depressed than people who are not. I don't know if poverty made them depressed or the depression made them poor. I think the cause and effect is an open question. Some people are so depressed they are not functional. 'I live in a crummy neighborhood. My kids go to a crummy school.' That is not the kind of scenario that would make them happy." Another effect of all this, he says: "Would you want to hire someone like that?"
The poor suspect that prices are higher where they live, even the prices in major supermarkets. The suspicions sometimes spill over into frustration.
On a hot spring afternoon, Jacob Carter finds himself standing in a checkout line at the Giant on Alabama Avenue SE. Before the cashier finishes ringing up his items, he puts $43 on the conveyor belt. But his bill comes to $52.07. He has no more money, so he tells the clerk to start removing items.
The clerk suggests that he use his "bonus card" for savings.
Carter tells the clerk he has no such card.
He puts back the liter of soda. Puts back the paper towels. Sets aside $9 worth of hot fried chicken wings. He returns $13 worth of groceries. "Y'all got some high prices in this [expletive]," he says, standing in Aisle 4, blue shirt over work clothes.
The clerk suggests that he take his cash off the conveyor belt, because if she moves the belt the money will be carried into the machinery. Then the money will be gone.
Carter, a building engineer, snatches up the money, then gives it to the clerk. His final bill is $39.07.
He looks at the receipt and then announces without the slightest indication as to why: "Just give me all my [expletive] money back. It's too high in this [expletive]." The clerk calls the supervisor, who comes over. The supervisor doesn't argue with Carter. She just starts the process of giving him a refund.
"I want my money back. This [expletive] is too high. My grandmother told me about this store."
The supervisor returns $39.07 in cash. "Sir," she says, "have a blessed day."
The food in this supermarket might be cheaper than the goods at a corner store. But Carter still feels frustrated by what he thinks is a mark-up on prices in supermarkets in poor neighborhoods. Carter walks out.
The poor pay in other ways, ways you might never imagine. Jeanette Reed, who is retired and lives on a fixed income, sold her blood when she needed money. "I had no other source to get money," she says. "I went to the blood bank. And they gave me $30
"I needed the money. I didn't have the money and no source of getting money. No gas. No food. I have to go to a center that gives out boxes of food once a month. They give you cereal or vouchers for $10. They give you canned tuna and macaroni and cheese. Crackers and soup. They give you commodities like day-old bread."
The poor know the special economics of their housing, too.
"You pay rent that might be more than a mortgage," Reed says. "But you don't have the credit or the down payment to buy a house. Apartments are not going down. They are going up. They say houses are better, cheaper. But how are you going to get in a house if you don't have any money for a down payment?"
There is also an economic cost to living in low-income neighborhoods.
"The cheaper housing is in more-dangerous areas," says Reed, who lives in Southeast Washington. "I moved out of my old apartment. I hate that area. They be walking up and down the street. Couldn't take the dog out at night because strangers walking up and down the street. They will knock on your door. Either they rob you, kill or ask for money. If you're not there, they will steal air conditioners and copper. They will sell your copper [pipes] for money."
And then there is the particular unpleasantness when you make too much money to fall below the poverty line, but not enough to move up, up and away from it.
For our final guest lecturer on poverty we take you to the Thrift Store on Georgia Avenue and Marie Nicholas, 35, in an orange shirt, purple pants and thick black eyeliner. She is what economists call the working poor.
She is picking through the racks. The store is busy with customers on a Monday afternoon. There is the shrill sound of hangers sliding across racks under fluorescent lights. An old confirmation dress hangs from the ceiling. It has faded to yellow. It's not far from the used silver pumps, size 9 1/2 , nearly new, on sale for $9.99.
"People working who don't make a lot of money go to the system for help, and they deny them," Nicholas says. "They say I make too much. It almost helps if you don't work."
She says she makes $15 an hour working as a certified nursing assistant. She pays $850 for rent for a one-bedroom that she shares with her boyfriend and child. She went looking for a two-bedroom unit recently and found it would cost her $1,400. She pays $300 a month for child care for her 11-year-old son, who is developmentally delayed. She tried to put him in a subsidized child-care facility, but was told she makes too much money. "My son was not chosen for Head Start because I wasn't in a shelter or on welfare. People's kids who do go don't do nothing but sit at home."
Money and time. "I ride the bus to get to work," Nicholas says. It takes an hour. "If I could drive, it would take me 10 minutes. I have to catch two buses." She gets to the bus stop at 6:30 a.m. The bus is supposed to come every 10 or 15 minutes. Sometimes, she says, it comes every 30 minutes.
What could you accomplish with the lost 20 minutes standing there in the rain? Waiting. That's another cost of poverty. You wait in lines. You wait at bus stops. You wait on the bus as it makes it way up Georgia Avenue, hitting every stop. No sense in trying to hurry when you are poor.
When you are poor, you wait.
Having Little Money Often Means No Car, No Washing Machine, No Checking Account And No Break From Fees and High Prices
By DeNeen L. Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 18, 2009
You have to be rich to be poor.
That's what some people who have never lived below the poverty line don't understand.
Put it another way: The poorer you are, the more things cost. More in money, time, hassle, exhaustion, menace. This is a fact of life that reality television and magazines don't often explain.
So we'll explain it here. Consider this a primer on the economics of poverty.
"The poor pay more for a gallon of milk; they pay more on a capital basis for inferior housing," says Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.). "The poor and 100 million who are struggling for the middle class actually end up paying more for transportation, for housing, for health care, for mortgages. They get steered to subprime lending. . . . The poor pay more for things middle-class America takes for granted."
Poverty 101: We'll start with the basics.
Like food: You don't have a car to get to a supermarket, much less to Costco or Trader Joe's, where the middle class goes to save money. You don't have three hours to take the bus. So you buy groceries at the corner store, where a gallon of milk costs an extra dollar.
A loaf of bread there costs you $2.99 for white. For wheat, it's $3.79. The clerk behind the counter tells you the gallon of leaking milk in the bottom of the back cooler is $4.99. She holds up four fingers to clarify. The milk is beneath the shelf that holds beef bologna for $3.79. A pound of butter sells for $4.49. In the back of the store are fruits and vegetables. The green peppers are shriveled, the bananas are more brown than yellow, the oranges are picked over.
(At a Safeway on Bradley Boulevard in Bethesda, the wheat bread costs $1.19, and white bread is on sale for $1. A gallon of milk costs $3.49 -- $2.99 if you buy two gallons. A pound of butter is $2.49. Beef bologna is on sale, two packages for $5.)
Prices in urban corner stores are almost always higher, economists say. And sometimes, prices in supermarkets in poorer neighborhoods are higher. Many of these stores charge more because the cost of doing business in some neighborhoods is higher. "First, they are probably paying more on goods because they don't get the low wholesale price that bigger stores get," says Bradley R. Schiller, a professor emeritus at American University and the author of "The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination."
"The real estate is higher. The fact that volume is low means fewer sales per worker. They make fewer dollars of revenue per square foot of space. They don't end up making more money. Every corner grocery store wishes they had profits their customers think they have."
According to the Census Bureau, more than 37 million people in the country live below the poverty line. The poor know these facts of life. These facts become their lives.
Time is money, they say, and the poor pay more in time, too.
When you are poor, you don't have the luxury of throwing a load into the washing machine and then taking your morning jog while it cycles. You wait until Monday afternoon, when the laundromat is most likely to be empty, and you put all of that laundry from four kids into four heaps, bundle it in sheets, load a cart and drag it to the corner.
"If I had my choice, I would have a washer and a dryer," says Nya Oti, 37, a food-service worker who lives in Brightwood. She stands on her toes to reach the top of a washer in the laundromat on Georgia Avenue NW and pours in detergent. The four loads of laundry will take her about two hours. A soap opera is playing loudly on the television hanging from the ceiling. A man comes in talking to himself. He drags his loads of dirty sheets and mattress pads and dumps them one by one into the machines next to Oti.
She does not seem to notice. She is talking about other costs of poverty. "My car broke down this weekend, and it took a lot of time getting on the bus, standing on the bus stop. It was a waste of a whole lot of times. Waiting. The transfer to the different bus."
When she has her car, she drives to Maryland, where she shops for her groceries at Shoppers Food Warehouse or Save-A-Lot, where she says some items are cheaper and some are higher. "They have a way of getting you in there on a bargain. You go in for something cheap, but something else is more expensive." She buys bags of oranges or apples, but not the organic kind. "Organic is too much," she says.
"When you are poor, you substitute time for money," says Randy Albelda, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. "You have to work a lot of hours and still not make a lot of money. You get squeezed, and your money is squeezed."
The poor pay more in hassle: the calls from the bill collectors, the landlord, the utility company. So they spend money to avoid the hassle. The poor pay for caller identification because it gives them peace of mind to weed out calls from bill collectors.
The rich have direct deposit for their paychecks. The poor have check-cashing and payday loan joints, which cost time and money. Payday advance companies say they are providing an essential service to people who most need them. Their critics say they are preying on people who are the most "economically vulnerable."
"As you've seen with the financial services industry, if people can cut a profit, they do it," Blumenauer says. "The poor pay more for financial services. A lot of people who are 'unbanked' pay $3 for a money order to pay their electric bill. They pay a 2 percent check-cashing fee because they don't have bank services. The reasons? Part of it is lack of education. But part of it is because people target them. There is evidence that credit-card mills have recently started trolling for the poor. They are targeting the recently bankrupt."
Outside the ACE check-cashing office on Georgia Avenue in Petworth, Harrison Blakeney, 67, explains a hard financial lesson of poverty. He uses the check-cashing store to pay his telephone bill. The store charges 10 percent to take Blakeney's money and send the payment to the phone company. That 10 percent becomes what it costs him to get his payment to the telephone company on time. Ten percent is more than the cost of a stamp. But, Blakeney says: "I don't have time to mail it. You come here and get it done. Then you don't get charged with the late fee."
Blakeney, a retired auto mechanic who now lives on a fixed income, says: "We could send the payment ahead of time but sometimes you don't have money ahead of time. That's why you pay extra money to get them to send it."
Blakeney, wearing a purple jacket, leans on his cane. He has no criticism for the check-cashing place. "That's how they make their money," he says. "I don't care about the charge."
Just then, Lenwood Brooks walks out of the check-cashing place. He is angry about how much it just cost him to cash a check. "They charged me $15 to cash a $300 check," he says.
You ask him why he didn't just go to a bank. But his story is as complicated as the various reasons people find themselves in poverty and in need of a check-cashing joint. He says he lost his driver's license and now his regular bank "won't recognize me as a human. That's why I had to come here. It's a rip-off, but it's like a convenience store. You pay for the convenience."
Then there's credit. The poor don't have it. What they had was a place like First Cash Advance in D.C.'s Manor Park neighborhood, where a neon sign once flashed "PAYDAY ADVANCE." Through the bulletproof glass, a cashier in white eyeliner and long white nails explained what you needed to get an advance on your paycheck -- a pay stub, a legitimate ID, a checkbook. This meant you're doing well enough to have a checking account, but you're still poor.
And if you qualify, the fee for borrowing $300 is $46.50.
That was not for a year -- it's for seven days, although the terms can vary. How much interest will this payday loan cost you? In simple terms, the company is charging a $15.50 fee for every $100 that you borrow. On your $300 payday loan -- borrowed for a term of seven days -- the effective annual percentage rate is 806 percent.
The cashier says that what you do is write First Cash Advance a check for $345.50 plus another $1 fee, and it will give you $300 in cash upfront. It holds the check until you get paid. Then you bring in $346.50 and it returns your check. Or it cashes the check and keeps your $346.50, or you have the option of extending the loan with additional fees. You'll be out $46.50, which you'd rather have for the late fee on the rent you didn't pay on time. Or the gas bill you swear you paid last month but the gas company swears it never got.
But now the payday advance place has closed, shuttered by metal doors. A sign in the front door says the business has moved. After the D.C. government passed a law requiring payday lenders to abide by a 24-percent limit on the annual percentage rate charged on a loan, many such stores in the District closed. Now advocates for the poor say they are concerned about other businesses that prey on poor people by extending loans in exchange for car titles. If a person does not pay back the loan, then the business becomes the owner of the car.
All these costs can lead the poor to a collective depression. Douglas J. Besharov, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says: "There are social costs of being poor, though it is not clear where the cause and effect is. We know for a fact that on certain measures, people who are poor are often more depressed than people who are not. I don't know if poverty made them depressed or the depression made them poor. I think the cause and effect is an open question. Some people are so depressed they are not functional. 'I live in a crummy neighborhood. My kids go to a crummy school.' That is not the kind of scenario that would make them happy." Another effect of all this, he says: "Would you want to hire someone like that?"
The poor suspect that prices are higher where they live, even the prices in major supermarkets. The suspicions sometimes spill over into frustration.
On a hot spring afternoon, Jacob Carter finds himself standing in a checkout line at the Giant on Alabama Avenue SE. Before the cashier finishes ringing up his items, he puts $43 on the conveyor belt. But his bill comes to $52.07. He has no more money, so he tells the clerk to start removing items.
The clerk suggests that he use his "bonus card" for savings.
Carter tells the clerk he has no such card.
He puts back the liter of soda. Puts back the paper towels. Sets aside $9 worth of hot fried chicken wings. He returns $13 worth of groceries. "Y'all got some high prices in this [expletive]," he says, standing in Aisle 4, blue shirt over work clothes.
The clerk suggests that he take his cash off the conveyor belt, because if she moves the belt the money will be carried into the machinery. Then the money will be gone.
Carter, a building engineer, snatches up the money, then gives it to the clerk. His final bill is $39.07.
He looks at the receipt and then announces without the slightest indication as to why: "Just give me all my [expletive] money back. It's too high in this [expletive]." The clerk calls the supervisor, who comes over. The supervisor doesn't argue with Carter. She just starts the process of giving him a refund.
"I want my money back. This [expletive] is too high. My grandmother told me about this store."
The supervisor returns $39.07 in cash. "Sir," she says, "have a blessed day."
The food in this supermarket might be cheaper than the goods at a corner store. But Carter still feels frustrated by what he thinks is a mark-up on prices in supermarkets in poor neighborhoods. Carter walks out.
The poor pay in other ways, ways you might never imagine. Jeanette Reed, who is retired and lives on a fixed income, sold her blood when she needed money. "I had no other source to get money," she says. "I went to the blood bank. And they gave me $30
"I needed the money. I didn't have the money and no source of getting money. No gas. No food. I have to go to a center that gives out boxes of food once a month. They give you cereal or vouchers for $10. They give you canned tuna and macaroni and cheese. Crackers and soup. They give you commodities like day-old bread."
The poor know the special economics of their housing, too.
"You pay rent that might be more than a mortgage," Reed says. "But you don't have the credit or the down payment to buy a house. Apartments are not going down. They are going up. They say houses are better, cheaper. But how are you going to get in a house if you don't have any money for a down payment?"
There is also an economic cost to living in low-income neighborhoods.
"The cheaper housing is in more-dangerous areas," says Reed, who lives in Southeast Washington. "I moved out of my old apartment. I hate that area. They be walking up and down the street. Couldn't take the dog out at night because strangers walking up and down the street. They will knock on your door. Either they rob you, kill or ask for money. If you're not there, they will steal air conditioners and copper. They will sell your copper [pipes] for money."
And then there is the particular unpleasantness when you make too much money to fall below the poverty line, but not enough to move up, up and away from it.
For our final guest lecturer on poverty we take you to the Thrift Store on Georgia Avenue and Marie Nicholas, 35, in an orange shirt, purple pants and thick black eyeliner. She is what economists call the working poor.
She is picking through the racks. The store is busy with customers on a Monday afternoon. There is the shrill sound of hangers sliding across racks under fluorescent lights. An old confirmation dress hangs from the ceiling. It has faded to yellow. It's not far from the used silver pumps, size 9 1/2 , nearly new, on sale for $9.99.
"People working who don't make a lot of money go to the system for help, and they deny them," Nicholas says. "They say I make too much. It almost helps if you don't work."
She says she makes $15 an hour working as a certified nursing assistant. She pays $850 for rent for a one-bedroom that she shares with her boyfriend and child. She went looking for a two-bedroom unit recently and found it would cost her $1,400. She pays $300 a month for child care for her 11-year-old son, who is developmentally delayed. She tried to put him in a subsidized child-care facility, but was told she makes too much money. "My son was not chosen for Head Start because I wasn't in a shelter or on welfare. People's kids who do go don't do nothing but sit at home."
Money and time. "I ride the bus to get to work," Nicholas says. It takes an hour. "If I could drive, it would take me 10 minutes. I have to catch two buses." She gets to the bus stop at 6:30 a.m. The bus is supposed to come every 10 or 15 minutes. Sometimes, she says, it comes every 30 minutes.
What could you accomplish with the lost 20 minutes standing there in the rain? Waiting. That's another cost of poverty. You wait in lines. You wait at bus stops. You wait on the bus as it makes it way up Georgia Avenue, hitting every stop. No sense in trying to hurry when you are poor.
When you are poor, you wait.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Reading assignment for Wednesday May 20
April 2, 2001 by John Leo
Republicans belittle environmental concerns
After a speech I gave to a conservative group in New York, a man rose to ask a question: Didn't I think that all the alarm about global warming was just another example of the politically correct agenda of the left? I said no, the evidence of a drastic warming trend seemed overwhelming to me.I missed the opportunity to say that the "no-consensus-on-warming" crowd now sounds a lot like the tobacco lobby arguing that the link between smoking and lung cancer has not yet been established. Even without this observation, my response was incorrect. So the man asked his question again to give me a fresh chance to get things right. I said I didn't understand why social conservatives are generally so hostile to environmental concerns. Shouldn't conserving come naturally to conservatives?
Apparently not. Economic conservatives, for whom The Wall Street Journal is the primary spokesman, are dismissive about most environmentalism. When President Bush announced he would not abide by the Kyoto protocol calling on America to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the Journal hailed him for "refusing to bow before the environmentalist holy of holies."
Derisive references to environmentalism as a quasi-religion of the softheaded tend to play well among social and religious conservatives who generally don't respond to arguments from big business. These references remind all conservatives that the most extreme environmentalism does look a bit like an ersatz earth religion, with humans as the poisonous intruders who shouldn't be here. But why do social and religious conservatives so often fall in line with business executives who dismiss environmentalists as wackos?
One reason is that environmentalism rose out of the same 1960s agitation that social conservatives believe was so ruinous to the general culture. Some environmentalists give the impression that the movement is simply part of the left, thus managing to alienate potential supporters on the right. This is a major strategic mistake, but an understandable one, given the hostility to the environment that Republicans have produced over the past 20 years.
Issues of class are a factor, too. Environmentalists tend to come from well-off elites with the luxury of worrying about the snail darter and the state of the global environment in 2050. When a candidate like Al Gore appears, it is relatively easy for Republicans to connect the dots and associate environmentalism with elite Democratic stances that appall so many conservatives.
The result is that on every level, the party with the most social conservatives contains the fewest environmentalists. In Congress, the most notable Republican effort in this field is attaching anti-environmental riders to appropriations bills. Martha Marks, head of REP America, refers to herself as "the president of what a few jokers have called the world's funniest oxymoron: Republicans for Environmental Protection."
The absence of a meaningful environmental constituency explains why it was so easy for the new administration to back off the Kyoto agreement and support drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and (ominously) other wilderness areas. The undermining of Christine Whitman as head of the Environmental Protection Agency apparently began early. Word came that she was known around the White House as "Brownie," a sarcastic reference to President Clinton's EPA chief, Carol Browner, who was predictably unpopular among many big-name Republicans. Is this a show of contempt for Whitman, her agency, or both?
Republican anti-environmentalism dates only from the Reagan years. As opinion rose against big government and heavy regulation, particularly in the West, environmental protection was demonized as a symbol of Washington's overbearing power. By the time of Newt Gingrich's poll-tested Contract With America, anti-environmentalism was part of the Republican canon. Environmental historian Willam Cronon writes that the contract "came to grief in good measure because most Americans continue to believe that protecting the environment is a good thing." Newt now thinks so too, and has admitted that Republicans were "malpositioned" on the environment.
George W. Bush is probably too moderate a man to emerge as a version of the old anti-environmental Newt. But even in narrow partisan terms, the Republicans should be careful here. Wirthlin Worldwide, a polling firm associated with Republican causes, reports that "two out of three Americans say we need to protect the environment no matter what it costs."
In 1999, Zogby International, another pollster heavily used by the GOP, surveyed probable Republican primary voters in five key states and found about as much support for "protect the environment" (92 percent) as "encourage family values" (93 percent). And an Environmental Defense Fund poll says that young adults (18 to 25) are "remarkably skeptical" about environmental progress over the past 30 years, with 62 percent believing that conditions are now worse than in 1970.
Republicans may be counting on the old rule of thumb: Everybody supports the environment in polls, but it's nobody's primary concern in the voting booth. But if I were running the party, I don't think I would tie myself closely to the losing side of a broad national argument.
Republicans belittle environmental concerns
After a speech I gave to a conservative group in New York, a man rose to ask a question: Didn't I think that all the alarm about global warming was just another example of the politically correct agenda of the left? I said no, the evidence of a drastic warming trend seemed overwhelming to me.I missed the opportunity to say that the "no-consensus-on-warming" crowd now sounds a lot like the tobacco lobby arguing that the link between smoking and lung cancer has not yet been established. Even without this observation, my response was incorrect. So the man asked his question again to give me a fresh chance to get things right. I said I didn't understand why social conservatives are generally so hostile to environmental concerns. Shouldn't conserving come naturally to conservatives?
Apparently not. Economic conservatives, for whom The Wall Street Journal is the primary spokesman, are dismissive about most environmentalism. When President Bush announced he would not abide by the Kyoto protocol calling on America to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the Journal hailed him for "refusing to bow before the environmentalist holy of holies."
Derisive references to environmentalism as a quasi-religion of the softheaded tend to play well among social and religious conservatives who generally don't respond to arguments from big business. These references remind all conservatives that the most extreme environmentalism does look a bit like an ersatz earth religion, with humans as the poisonous intruders who shouldn't be here. But why do social and religious conservatives so often fall in line with business executives who dismiss environmentalists as wackos?
One reason is that environmentalism rose out of the same 1960s agitation that social conservatives believe was so ruinous to the general culture. Some environmentalists give the impression that the movement is simply part of the left, thus managing to alienate potential supporters on the right. This is a major strategic mistake, but an understandable one, given the hostility to the environment that Republicans have produced over the past 20 years.
Issues of class are a factor, too. Environmentalists tend to come from well-off elites with the luxury of worrying about the snail darter and the state of the global environment in 2050. When a candidate like Al Gore appears, it is relatively easy for Republicans to connect the dots and associate environmentalism with elite Democratic stances that appall so many conservatives.
The result is that on every level, the party with the most social conservatives contains the fewest environmentalists. In Congress, the most notable Republican effort in this field is attaching anti-environmental riders to appropriations bills. Martha Marks, head of REP America, refers to herself as "the president of what a few jokers have called the world's funniest oxymoron: Republicans for Environmental Protection."
The absence of a meaningful environmental constituency explains why it was so easy for the new administration to back off the Kyoto agreement and support drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and (ominously) other wilderness areas. The undermining of Christine Whitman as head of the Environmental Protection Agency apparently began early. Word came that she was known around the White House as "Brownie," a sarcastic reference to President Clinton's EPA chief, Carol Browner, who was predictably unpopular among many big-name Republicans. Is this a show of contempt for Whitman, her agency, or both?
Republican anti-environmentalism dates only from the Reagan years. As opinion rose against big government and heavy regulation, particularly in the West, environmental protection was demonized as a symbol of Washington's overbearing power. By the time of Newt Gingrich's poll-tested Contract With America, anti-environmentalism was part of the Republican canon. Environmental historian Willam Cronon writes that the contract "came to grief in good measure because most Americans continue to believe that protecting the environment is a good thing." Newt now thinks so too, and has admitted that Republicans were "malpositioned" on the environment.
George W. Bush is probably too moderate a man to emerge as a version of the old anti-environmental Newt. But even in narrow partisan terms, the Republicans should be careful here. Wirthlin Worldwide, a polling firm associated with Republican causes, reports that "two out of three Americans say we need to protect the environment no matter what it costs."
In 1999, Zogby International, another pollster heavily used by the GOP, surveyed probable Republican primary voters in five key states and found about as much support for "protect the environment" (92 percent) as "encourage family values" (93 percent). And an Environmental Defense Fund poll says that young adults (18 to 25) are "remarkably skeptical" about environmental progress over the past 30 years, with 62 percent believing that conditions are now worse than in 1970.
Republicans may be counting on the old rule of thumb: Everybody supports the environment in polls, but it's nobody's primary concern in the voting booth. But if I were running the party, I don't think I would tie myself closely to the losing side of a broad national argument.
Reading Assignment for Tue May 19
Read Chapter 19 "Population and the Environment"
This is the last chapter to read!!!
Take notes on.......
Demography, Census, Vital statistics, demographic transition, population explosion, baby boom & stable population growth.
This is the last chapter to read!!!
Take notes on.......
Demography, Census, Vital statistics, demographic transition, population explosion, baby boom & stable population growth.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Reading Assignment for Thursday May 14
The Importance of Education
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education has an immense impact on the human society. One can safely assume that a person is not in the proper sense till he is educated. It trains the human mind to think and take the right decision. In other words, man becomes a rational animal when he is educated.
It is through education that knowledge and information is received and spread throughout the world. An uneducated person cannot read and write and hence he is closed to all the knowledge and wisdom he can gain through books and other mediums. In other words, he is shut off from the outside world. In contrast, an educated man lives in a room with all its windows open towards outside world.
The quality of human resource of a nation is easily judged by the number of literate population living in it. This is to say that education is a must if a nation aspires to achieve growth and development and more importantly sustain it. This may well explain the fact that rich and developed nations of the world have very high literacy rate and productive human resource. In fact these nations have started imparting selective training and education programs so as to meet the new technical and business demands of the 21st century.
In the US, many educational institutes offer vocational as well as other training programs apart from the normal credit programs. To cater to the educational needs of the working population, many colleges offer online education. The degrees and certificates offered by these online colleges and universities are very convenient for working people as well as students. Working people needs these degrees to update their knowledge and skill level which will come handy in their promotion and achieving growth as professionals. Students can also pursue an online degree and work and earn at the same time.
In fact, certain professionals like doctors and dentists, are obliged to follow mandatory lifelong learning. This is done so that they keep pace with all the research and development done in the medical field. These professionals not only needs to update themselves about these developments, but also learn new techniques of practice and perfect old ones. Learning about patient management and the delivery of care is rather a continuing process. Since these professionals, especially doctors have huge moral responsibility towards the patients and society in general, continuing education is a must for them.
It is in such a scenario that distance education comes into the picture. Since professionals do not have the time to attend classroom classes, distance education comes as a convenient alternative. They can learn at a time convenient to them and from the comfort of their homes.
Keeping the importance of education in mind, the US Department of Education aims to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. It also establishes policies regarding federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds. It also continuously strives to focus national attention on key educational issues and providing equal access to education.
The importance of education cannot be neglected by any nation. And in today’s world, the role of education has become even more vital. It is an absolute necessity for economic and social development of any nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education has an immense impact on the human society. One can safely assume that a person is not in the proper sense till he is educated. It trains the human mind to think and take the right decision. In other words, man becomes a rational animal when he is educated.
It is through education that knowledge and information is received and spread throughout the world. An uneducated person cannot read and write and hence he is closed to all the knowledge and wisdom he can gain through books and other mediums. In other words, he is shut off from the outside world. In contrast, an educated man lives in a room with all its windows open towards outside world.
The quality of human resource of a nation is easily judged by the number of literate population living in it. This is to say that education is a must if a nation aspires to achieve growth and development and more importantly sustain it. This may well explain the fact that rich and developed nations of the world have very high literacy rate and productive human resource. In fact these nations have started imparting selective training and education programs so as to meet the new technical and business demands of the 21st century.
In the US, many educational institutes offer vocational as well as other training programs apart from the normal credit programs. To cater to the educational needs of the working population, many colleges offer online education. The degrees and certificates offered by these online colleges and universities are very convenient for working people as well as students. Working people needs these degrees to update their knowledge and skill level which will come handy in their promotion and achieving growth as professionals. Students can also pursue an online degree and work and earn at the same time.
In fact, certain professionals like doctors and dentists, are obliged to follow mandatory lifelong learning. This is done so that they keep pace with all the research and development done in the medical field. These professionals not only needs to update themselves about these developments, but also learn new techniques of practice and perfect old ones. Learning about patient management and the delivery of care is rather a continuing process. Since these professionals, especially doctors have huge moral responsibility towards the patients and society in general, continuing education is a must for them.
It is in such a scenario that distance education comes into the picture. Since professionals do not have the time to attend classroom classes, distance education comes as a convenient alternative. They can learn at a time convenient to them and from the comfort of their homes.
Keeping the importance of education in mind, the US Department of Education aims to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. It also establishes policies regarding federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds. It also continuously strives to focus national attention on key educational issues and providing equal access to education.
The importance of education cannot be neglected by any nation. And in today’s world, the role of education has become even more vital. It is an absolute necessity for economic and social development of any nation.
Read these two articles for Wed May 13
Louisiana gov. signs controversial education bill
Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:33pm EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
Featured Broker sponsored link
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal has signed into law a bill that critics say could allow for the teaching of "creationism" alongside evolution in public schools.
Jindal, a conservative Christian who has been touted by pundits as a potential vice presidential running mate for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, signed the legislation earlier this week.
The law will allow schools if they choose to use "supplemental materials" when discussing evolution but does not specify what the materials would be.
It states that authorities "shall allow ... open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning."
It also says that it "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
Jindal's office declined on Friday to comment. The bill was backed by the Louisiana Family Forum, a conservative Christian group, and the Discovery Institute, which promotes the theory of "intelligent design" -- a theory that maintains that the complexity of life points to a grand designer.
"Intelligent design is currently not in the Louisiana state science standards and so could not be taught. But this allows scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory to be taught," said John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Critics say intelligent design is biblical creation theory by another name and that the new legislation is an attempt to water down instruction about evolution.
"Louisiana has a long and unfortunate history of trying to substitute dogma for science in ... classrooms," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, an executive director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a religious liberty watchdog.
The group says similar legislation has been attempted previously in other states such South Carolina, Alabama, Michigan, Missouri and Florida. Similar battles have also taken places at the school board level in Kansas.
The teaching of evolution -- the basis of modern biology rooted in 19th-century naturalist Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection -- has become one of the leading battlefields in the America's "culture wars."
Many U.S. conservative Christians reject evolution and believe in the biblical story of creation. A nationwide survey conducted last year by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 45 percent of U.S. adults did not think evolution was the best explanation for the origins of human life.
Evidence and Evolution: A Controversial Theory— Rob Bartlett
THE IMPORTANCE OF evolutionary theory for biology can hardly be overstated. An oft-quoted remark by the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky captures this: "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." The applications of genetics—the foundation of evolutionary theory—are widespread and profound in technology as well as basic biology.
One of the reasons that governments and private industry were willing to sink billions of dollars into sequencing the human genome—then mice, fruit flies, roundworms and other organisms—is that they expect to get big profits from comparing the DNA (basic genetic material) from genes in different species. One benefit comes from identifying mutated forms of genes responsible for diseases or associated with higher risks of developing diseases, and potentially the development of drug treatments for them.
Yet any casual reader of newspapers cannot fail to have noticed a steady stream of articles dealing with evolution—not articles detailing the research of scientists studying aspects of the history of life, but cases where local or state boards of education or legislators introduce challenges to the central paradigm in biology of evolution, in the name of "teaching the controversy" or allowing the "evidence contradicting evolution." The recent case most in the news is that of Dover, PA, whose school board was sued by parents who opposed the introduction of Intelligent Design (ID) into their curriculum. Specifically the board required that teachers read a statement asserting that "because Darwin's theory is a theory it continues to be tested"…and "is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence." It then introduces Intelligent Design as an alternative explanation to evolution.
In late December (after the voters in Dover had kicked the "Intelligent Design" proponents off the school board), the judge hearing the case made a sweeping ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, labeling ID not scientific but merely a mutation of "scientific creationism" and thus religious in essence, violating the separation of church and state. The 139-page opinion declined to rule narrowly, and instead was a historical listing of both the legal antecedents of this case and a detailed refutation of the scientific claims of ID.
Not surprisingly, proponents of ID like the Discovery Institute's associate director, Dr. John West, decried the decision saying that "Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur." Allusions to activist judges are somewhat ironic in this case as the judge is a Republican, appointed by President Bush.
Although this ruling is nothing new, but merely affirms similar rulings of the past, it is clear that the "controversy" over evolution will not go away. During 2005 there were dozens of other instances where legislators introduced bills supporting the teaching of ID, or where state boards of educations changed their standards to weaken the teaching of evolution, despite widespread unanimity in the scientific community that support the primacy of evolution as a unifying theory in biology.
While much of this legislation is introduced with little chance of it being enacted into law, in some places, like Kansas and Ohio, state boards of education have changed their state science standards to introduce "controversy" over the theory of evolution or allow teaching of "alternative theories" to evolution such as ID.
Even a state like Illinois, which has a standard that reads "Describe processes by which organisms change over time using evidence from comparative anatomy and physiology, embryology, the fossil record, genetics and biochemistry," the "process,"—evolution—is not named. This could be attributed to either caution or cowardice, but in any case it highlights the chilling effect of opposition to evolution.
Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:33pm EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
Featured Broker sponsored link
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal has signed into law a bill that critics say could allow for the teaching of "creationism" alongside evolution in public schools.
Jindal, a conservative Christian who has been touted by pundits as a potential vice presidential running mate for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, signed the legislation earlier this week.
The law will allow schools if they choose to use "supplemental materials" when discussing evolution but does not specify what the materials would be.
It states that authorities "shall allow ... open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning."
It also says that it "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
Jindal's office declined on Friday to comment. The bill was backed by the Louisiana Family Forum, a conservative Christian group, and the Discovery Institute, which promotes the theory of "intelligent design" -- a theory that maintains that the complexity of life points to a grand designer.
"Intelligent design is currently not in the Louisiana state science standards and so could not be taught. But this allows scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory to be taught," said John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Critics say intelligent design is biblical creation theory by another name and that the new legislation is an attempt to water down instruction about evolution.
"Louisiana has a long and unfortunate history of trying to substitute dogma for science in ... classrooms," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, an executive director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a religious liberty watchdog.
The group says similar legislation has been attempted previously in other states such South Carolina, Alabama, Michigan, Missouri and Florida. Similar battles have also taken places at the school board level in Kansas.
The teaching of evolution -- the basis of modern biology rooted in 19th-century naturalist Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection -- has become one of the leading battlefields in the America's "culture wars."
Many U.S. conservative Christians reject evolution and believe in the biblical story of creation. A nationwide survey conducted last year by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 45 percent of U.S. adults did not think evolution was the best explanation for the origins of human life.
Evidence and Evolution: A Controversial Theory— Rob Bartlett
THE IMPORTANCE OF evolutionary theory for biology can hardly be overstated. An oft-quoted remark by the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky captures this: "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." The applications of genetics—the foundation of evolutionary theory—are widespread and profound in technology as well as basic biology.
One of the reasons that governments and private industry were willing to sink billions of dollars into sequencing the human genome—then mice, fruit flies, roundworms and other organisms—is that they expect to get big profits from comparing the DNA (basic genetic material) from genes in different species. One benefit comes from identifying mutated forms of genes responsible for diseases or associated with higher risks of developing diseases, and potentially the development of drug treatments for them.
Yet any casual reader of newspapers cannot fail to have noticed a steady stream of articles dealing with evolution—not articles detailing the research of scientists studying aspects of the history of life, but cases where local or state boards of education or legislators introduce challenges to the central paradigm in biology of evolution, in the name of "teaching the controversy" or allowing the "evidence contradicting evolution." The recent case most in the news is that of Dover, PA, whose school board was sued by parents who opposed the introduction of Intelligent Design (ID) into their curriculum. Specifically the board required that teachers read a statement asserting that "because Darwin's theory is a theory it continues to be tested"…and "is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence." It then introduces Intelligent Design as an alternative explanation to evolution.
In late December (after the voters in Dover had kicked the "Intelligent Design" proponents off the school board), the judge hearing the case made a sweeping ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, labeling ID not scientific but merely a mutation of "scientific creationism" and thus religious in essence, violating the separation of church and state. The 139-page opinion declined to rule narrowly, and instead was a historical listing of both the legal antecedents of this case and a detailed refutation of the scientific claims of ID.
Not surprisingly, proponents of ID like the Discovery Institute's associate director, Dr. John West, decried the decision saying that "Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur." Allusions to activist judges are somewhat ironic in this case as the judge is a Republican, appointed by President Bush.
Although this ruling is nothing new, but merely affirms similar rulings of the past, it is clear that the "controversy" over evolution will not go away. During 2005 there were dozens of other instances where legislators introduced bills supporting the teaching of ID, or where state boards of educations changed their standards to weaken the teaching of evolution, despite widespread unanimity in the scientific community that support the primacy of evolution as a unifying theory in biology.
While much of this legislation is introduced with little chance of it being enacted into law, in some places, like Kansas and Ohio, state boards of education have changed their state science standards to introduce "controversy" over the theory of evolution or allow teaching of "alternative theories" to evolution such as ID.
Even a state like Illinois, which has a standard that reads "Describe processes by which organisms change over time using evidence from comparative anatomy and physiology, embryology, the fossil record, genetics and biochemistry," the "process,"—evolution—is not named. This could be attributed to either caution or cowardice, but in any case it highlights the chilling effect of opposition to evolution.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Reading Assignment for Wed 5/6
It's All Our Fault
By John Leo
Posted 7/31/05
In the wake of the London bombings, New York City is now searching the bags of subway riders. As you might expect, this is provoking the usual cluster of perverse reactions. Someone on Air America, the liberal talk radio network, suggested that riders carry many bags to confuse and irritate the cops. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, normally a sane fellow, has ordered that the searches be entirely random, to avoid singling out any one ethnic or religious group. So if someone fits the suicide bomber profile--young Muslim male, short hair, recently shaved beard or mustache, smelling of flower water (a preparation for entering paradise)--the police must look away and search the nun or the Boy Scout behind him. What's the point of stopping a terrorist if you have to trample political correctness to do it? Besides, the New York Civil Liberties Union opposes all bag searches. No surprise there. The national American Civil Liberties Union still opposes passenger screening at airports. In a speech at the Brookings Institution, historian Fred Siegel said that the Democrats, pegged as the party of criminals' rights, are in danger of becoming the party of terrorists' rights.
From the first moments after the attacks of 9/11, we had indicators that the left would not be able to take terrorism seriously. Instead of resolve, we got concern about emotional closure and "root causes," warnings about the allegedly great danger of a backlash against Muslim Americans, arguments that violence directed at America is our own fault, and suggestions that we must not use force, because violence never solves anything. "We can't bomb our way to justice," said Ralph Nader.
The denial of the peril facing America remains a staple of the left. We still hear that the terrorism is a scattered and minor threat that should be dealt with as a criminal justice matter. In Britain last October, the BBC, a perennial leader in foolish leftism, delivered a three-part TV series arguing that terrorism is vastly exaggerated. Al Qaeda barely exists at all, the series argued, except as an idea that uses religious violence to achieve its ends. Besides, the series said, a dirty bomb would not kill many people and may not even kill anyone. This ho-hum approach isn't rare. Though evidence shows that the terrorists are interested in acquiring nuclear weapons to use against our cities, a learned writer for the New York Review of Books insists that the real weapons of mass destruction are world poverty and environmental abuse. Of course, world poverty is rarely mentioned by terrorists, and those known to be involved have almost all been well fed and are well to do.
Trade-offs. The "our fault" argument seems permanently entrenched. After the London bombings, Norman Geras of the University of Manchester wrote in the Guardian that the root causes and blame-Blair outbursts were "spreading like an infestation across the pages of this newspaper ... there are, among us, apologists for what the killers do." That has been the case on both sides of the Atlantic. After 9/11, Michael Walzer, one of the most powerful voices on the left, warned about "the politics of ideological apology" for terrorism. In the June 2005 issue of the American Prospect, he returned to the theme. "Is anybody still excusing terrorism?" he asked. "The answer is yes: Secret sympathy, even fascination with violence among men and women who think of themselves as 'militants,' is a disease, and recovery is slow." Though the argument has shifted somewhat, he wrote, the problem is "how to make people feel that the liberal left is interested in their security and capable of acting effectively. We won't win an election until we address this."
Walzer's analysis is a strong one. The Bush administration has botched many things, but large numbers of Americans go along with the president because he displays what the left apparently cannot: moral clarity and seriousness about what must be done. When the ideas of the left come into view, the themes often include the closing of Guantánamo, attacks on the Patriot Act, opposition to military recruitment on campuses, casual mockery of patriotism (a whole art exhibit in Baltimore was devoted to the theme), and a failure to admit that defeating terrorism will require some trade-offs between security and civil liberties. Is this a serious program? Real security, Walzer says, will depend on hunting down terrorist cells, cutting off the flow of money, and improving surveillance at key sites. He writes: "The burden is on us--nobody else--to make the case that these things can be done effectively by liberals and leftists who will also, in contrast to today's Republicans, defend the civil liberties of American citizens." Good argument. How will the left respond?
To hear some on the left tell it, terrorism is exactly what the West deserves for its many sins.
By John Leo
Posted 7/31/05
In the wake of the London bombings, New York City is now searching the bags of subway riders. As you might expect, this is provoking the usual cluster of perverse reactions. Someone on Air America, the liberal talk radio network, suggested that riders carry many bags to confuse and irritate the cops. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, normally a sane fellow, has ordered that the searches be entirely random, to avoid singling out any one ethnic or religious group. So if someone fits the suicide bomber profile--young Muslim male, short hair, recently shaved beard or mustache, smelling of flower water (a preparation for entering paradise)--the police must look away and search the nun or the Boy Scout behind him. What's the point of stopping a terrorist if you have to trample political correctness to do it? Besides, the New York Civil Liberties Union opposes all bag searches. No surprise there. The national American Civil Liberties Union still opposes passenger screening at airports. In a speech at the Brookings Institution, historian Fred Siegel said that the Democrats, pegged as the party of criminals' rights, are in danger of becoming the party of terrorists' rights.
From the first moments after the attacks of 9/11, we had indicators that the left would not be able to take terrorism seriously. Instead of resolve, we got concern about emotional closure and "root causes," warnings about the allegedly great danger of a backlash against Muslim Americans, arguments that violence directed at America is our own fault, and suggestions that we must not use force, because violence never solves anything. "We can't bomb our way to justice," said Ralph Nader.
The denial of the peril facing America remains a staple of the left. We still hear that the terrorism is a scattered and minor threat that should be dealt with as a criminal justice matter. In Britain last October, the BBC, a perennial leader in foolish leftism, delivered a three-part TV series arguing that terrorism is vastly exaggerated. Al Qaeda barely exists at all, the series argued, except as an idea that uses religious violence to achieve its ends. Besides, the series said, a dirty bomb would not kill many people and may not even kill anyone. This ho-hum approach isn't rare. Though evidence shows that the terrorists are interested in acquiring nuclear weapons to use against our cities, a learned writer for the New York Review of Books insists that the real weapons of mass destruction are world poverty and environmental abuse. Of course, world poverty is rarely mentioned by terrorists, and those known to be involved have almost all been well fed and are well to do.
Trade-offs. The "our fault" argument seems permanently entrenched. After the London bombings, Norman Geras of the University of Manchester wrote in the Guardian that the root causes and blame-Blair outbursts were "spreading like an infestation across the pages of this newspaper ... there are, among us, apologists for what the killers do." That has been the case on both sides of the Atlantic. After 9/11, Michael Walzer, one of the most powerful voices on the left, warned about "the politics of ideological apology" for terrorism. In the June 2005 issue of the American Prospect, he returned to the theme. "Is anybody still excusing terrorism?" he asked. "The answer is yes: Secret sympathy, even fascination with violence among men and women who think of themselves as 'militants,' is a disease, and recovery is slow." Though the argument has shifted somewhat, he wrote, the problem is "how to make people feel that the liberal left is interested in their security and capable of acting effectively. We won't win an election until we address this."
Walzer's analysis is a strong one. The Bush administration has botched many things, but large numbers of Americans go along with the president because he displays what the left apparently cannot: moral clarity and seriousness about what must be done. When the ideas of the left come into view, the themes often include the closing of Guantánamo, attacks on the Patriot Act, opposition to military recruitment on campuses, casual mockery of patriotism (a whole art exhibit in Baltimore was devoted to the theme), and a failure to admit that defeating terrorism will require some trade-offs between security and civil liberties. Is this a serious program? Real security, Walzer says, will depend on hunting down terrorist cells, cutting off the flow of money, and improving surveillance at key sites. He writes: "The burden is on us--nobody else--to make the case that these things can be done effectively by liberals and leftists who will also, in contrast to today's Republicans, defend the civil liberties of American citizens." Good argument. How will the left respond?
To hear some on the left tell it, terrorism is exactly what the West deserves for its many sins.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Written Assignment #8 due Thurs April 29
After reading Chapter 15 answer these questions....
How do capitalism, socialism, and communism differ as ideal types?
How are systems of power and authority organized?
Is the United States run by a small ruling elite?
How does a profession differ from an occupation
Have affirmative action programs gone too far - or not far enough - in an effort to combat discrimination against women and minorities?
How do capitalism, socialism, and communism differ as ideal types?
How are systems of power and authority organized?
Is the United States run by a small ruling elite?
How does a profession differ from an occupation
Have affirmative action programs gone too far - or not far enough - in an effort to combat discrimination against women and minorities?
Reading Assignment: Chapter 15
Read Chapter 15
Focus on economic systems and politics and government.
Focus on economic systems and politics and government.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Reading Assignment for Thursday April 23
Has Welfare Reform Helped the Poor? WiseTo Social Issues Digest. The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. 2007.
Topic Overview
In the United States, large-scale public assistance programs for the poor---commonly referred to as welfare---began with the Social Security Act of 1935. Responding to Americans' needs during the Great Depression, this act provided federal cash relief to the disabled, widowed, and single-parent families in a program that was later named Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
Throughout most of the remainder of the twentieth century, the federal government provided cash aid to the poor---mostly unemployed single mothers and their children---without setting limits on how long families could receive this assistance. Some critics argued that this approach was counterproductive because it allowed the poor to be idle, resulting in a permanent underclass of people living off of welfare checks and feeling no incentive to find work. Others maintained that AFDC provided such meager support to single mothers that it was impossible for them to acquire the education and skills necessary to find work and pull themselves out of poverty. Most policy makers agreed that welfare needed to be reformed in order to reduce---rather than sustain---poverty.
In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a reform measure intended to "end welfare as we know it." The act replaced AFDC with a program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a system that grants states a set amount of funds to distribute to the poor as well as more authority in determining welfare eligibility. In addition, most adult welfare recipients are now required to find jobs within two years after the beginning of their case, and they are limited to a maximum of five years of assistance in their lifetimes.
Now that several years have passed since the enactment of the 1996 reform, analysts have mixed reviews about its effect on poverty in the United States.
On the one hand, the mandatory work requirements spurred people to leave welfare and take jobs, cutting welfare caseloads in half. Moreover, the rates of child poverty---particularly among minority children and children of single mothers---decreased. Most significantly, reform supporters point out, former welfare recipients who work full-time at low-wage jobs can apply for noncash benefits such as child care, food stamps, and Medicaid. While they may have minimum-wage jobs, the noncash benefits subsidize their incomes and increase their standard of living.
Critics, however, point out that the 1996 welfare reform law requires no detailed reporting from states. This, they argue, results in skewed poverty statistics and inconsistently distributed benefits. Administrative and bureaucratic hassles often discourage low-income families from obtaining noncash assistance like food stamps or transportation subsidies. These families become part of the working poor---with very limited access to food, health care, and adequate housing. Many critics also predict an increase in homelessness as a growing number of poor families reach their maximum five-year welfare limit.
While supporters of welfare reform celebrate the dramatic decrease in welfare rolls, critics continue to question whether the "new welfare" has truly reduced poverty.
Welfare Should Be Eliminated Tanner, Michael. At Issue: Welfare Reform. Charles P. Cozic. Greenhaven Press 1997.
Viewpoint
From across the political and ideological spectrum, there is almost universal acknowledgment that the American social welfare system has been a failure. Since the start of the War on Poverty in 1965, the U.S. has spent more than $3.5 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. The result of that massive investment is, primarily, more poverty.
The welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers, who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church, and family increasingly are pushed aside; and, most of all, to the poor themselves, who are trapped…
Topic Overview
In the United States, large-scale public assistance programs for the poor---commonly referred to as welfare---began with the Social Security Act of 1935. Responding to Americans' needs during the Great Depression, this act provided federal cash relief to the disabled, widowed, and single-parent families in a program that was later named Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
Throughout most of the remainder of the twentieth century, the federal government provided cash aid to the poor---mostly unemployed single mothers and their children---without setting limits on how long families could receive this assistance. Some critics argued that this approach was counterproductive because it allowed the poor to be idle, resulting in a permanent underclass of people living off of welfare checks and feeling no incentive to find work. Others maintained that AFDC provided such meager support to single mothers that it was impossible for them to acquire the education and skills necessary to find work and pull themselves out of poverty. Most policy makers agreed that welfare needed to be reformed in order to reduce---rather than sustain---poverty.
In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a reform measure intended to "end welfare as we know it." The act replaced AFDC with a program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a system that grants states a set amount of funds to distribute to the poor as well as more authority in determining welfare eligibility. In addition, most adult welfare recipients are now required to find jobs within two years after the beginning of their case, and they are limited to a maximum of five years of assistance in their lifetimes.
Now that several years have passed since the enactment of the 1996 reform, analysts have mixed reviews about its effect on poverty in the United States.
On the one hand, the mandatory work requirements spurred people to leave welfare and take jobs, cutting welfare caseloads in half. Moreover, the rates of child poverty---particularly among minority children and children of single mothers---decreased. Most significantly, reform supporters point out, former welfare recipients who work full-time at low-wage jobs can apply for noncash benefits such as child care, food stamps, and Medicaid. While they may have minimum-wage jobs, the noncash benefits subsidize their incomes and increase their standard of living.
Critics, however, point out that the 1996 welfare reform law requires no detailed reporting from states. This, they argue, results in skewed poverty statistics and inconsistently distributed benefits. Administrative and bureaucratic hassles often discourage low-income families from obtaining noncash assistance like food stamps or transportation subsidies. These families become part of the working poor---with very limited access to food, health care, and adequate housing. Many critics also predict an increase in homelessness as a growing number of poor families reach their maximum five-year welfare limit.
While supporters of welfare reform celebrate the dramatic decrease in welfare rolls, critics continue to question whether the "new welfare" has truly reduced poverty.
Welfare Should Be Eliminated Tanner, Michael. At Issue: Welfare Reform. Charles P. Cozic. Greenhaven Press 1997.
Viewpoint
From across the political and ideological spectrum, there is almost universal acknowledgment that the American social welfare system has been a failure. Since the start of the War on Poverty in 1965, the U.S. has spent more than $3.5 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. The result of that massive investment is, primarily, more poverty.
The welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers, who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church, and family increasingly are pushed aside; and, most of all, to the poor themselves, who are trapped…
Reading Assignment "Wealth, Income, and Power"
Wealth, Income, and Power
by G. William Domhoff
September 2005 (updated December 2006)
This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.
Some of the information might be a surprise to many people. The most amazing numbers come last, showing the change in the ratio of the average CEO's paycheck to that of the average factory worker over the past 40 years.
First, though, two definitions. Generally speaking, "wealth" is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth, which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."
We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from wages, dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income.
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).
Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2001
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.4%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.3%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.5%
Financial Wealth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.8%
The Class-Domination Theory of Power
As argued in Who Rules America?, the owners and top executives of the largest corporations, banks, investment firms, and agri-businesses come together as a corporate community. Their enormous economic resources give them the "structural economic power" that is the basis for dominating the federal government through lobbying, campaign finance, appointments to key government positions, and a policy-planning network made up of foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion groups. The CEOs and biggest owners in the corporate community, along with the top executives at the foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion groups, work together as a leadership group that I call the power elite. However, they do fight among themselves sometimes, leading to moderate-conservative and ultra-conservative factions in the power elite.
As the very phrase "power structure" suggests, it is not easy to change power arrangements, even in a country where people have won freedom of speech and the right to vote. To start with, it is necessary to understand the intricacies of a power structure and how it was constructed in order to change it -- that's where the power structure research discussed in other parts of this site comes in. The following articles include analysis of the successes and failures of social change movements in the U.S. as well as advice for progressive activists on how to move forward.
What Social Science Can Tell Us About Social Change
It's necessary to know what works and doesn't work, and what role activists can play. So the centerpiece of this section describes what can be learned from the social sciences about creating greater equality.
Questions and Answers
Q: So, who does rule America?
A: The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., corporations, banks, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire. You can read the essential details of the argument in this summary of Who Rules America?, or look for the book itself at Amazon.com.
Q: Do the same people rule at the local level that rule at the federal level?
A: No, not quite. The local level is dominated by the land owners and businesses related to real estate that come together as growth coalitions, making cities into growth machines.
Q: Do they rule secretly from behind the scenes, as a conspiracy?
A: No, conspiracy theories are wrong, though it's true that some corporate leaders lie and steal, and that some government officials try to keep things secret (but usually fail).
Q: Then how do they rule?
A: That's a complicated story, but the short answer is through open and direct involvement in policy planning, through participation in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government.
Q: Are you saying that elections don't matter?
A: No, but they usually matter a lot less than they could, and a lot less in America than they do in other industrialized democracies. That's because of the nature of the electoral rules and the unique history of the South.
Q: Does social science research have anything useful to say about making progressive social change more effective?
A: Yes, it does, but few if any people pay much attention to that research.
by G. William Domhoff
September 2005 (updated December 2006)
This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.
Some of the information might be a surprise to many people. The most amazing numbers come last, showing the change in the ratio of the average CEO's paycheck to that of the average factory worker over the past 40 years.
First, though, two definitions. Generally speaking, "wealth" is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth, which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."
We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from wages, dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income.
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).
Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2001
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.4%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.3%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.5%
Financial Wealth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.8%
The Class-Domination Theory of Power
As argued in Who Rules America?, the owners and top executives of the largest corporations, banks, investment firms, and agri-businesses come together as a corporate community. Their enormous economic resources give them the "structural economic power" that is the basis for dominating the federal government through lobbying, campaign finance, appointments to key government positions, and a policy-planning network made up of foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion groups. The CEOs and biggest owners in the corporate community, along with the top executives at the foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion groups, work together as a leadership group that I call the power elite. However, they do fight among themselves sometimes, leading to moderate-conservative and ultra-conservative factions in the power elite.
As the very phrase "power structure" suggests, it is not easy to change power arrangements, even in a country where people have won freedom of speech and the right to vote. To start with, it is necessary to understand the intricacies of a power structure and how it was constructed in order to change it -- that's where the power structure research discussed in other parts of this site comes in. The following articles include analysis of the successes and failures of social change movements in the U.S. as well as advice for progressive activists on how to move forward.
What Social Science Can Tell Us About Social Change
It's necessary to know what works and doesn't work, and what role activists can play. So the centerpiece of this section describes what can be learned from the social sciences about creating greater equality.
Questions and Answers
Q: So, who does rule America?
A: The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., corporations, banks, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire. You can read the essential details of the argument in this summary of Who Rules America?, or look for the book itself at Amazon.com.
Q: Do the same people rule at the local level that rule at the federal level?
A: No, not quite. The local level is dominated by the land owners and businesses related to real estate that come together as growth coalitions, making cities into growth machines.
Q: Do they rule secretly from behind the scenes, as a conspiracy?
A: No, conspiracy theories are wrong, though it's true that some corporate leaders lie and steal, and that some government officials try to keep things secret (but usually fail).
Q: Then how do they rule?
A: That's a complicated story, but the short answer is through open and direct involvement in policy planning, through participation in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government.
Q: Are you saying that elections don't matter?
A: No, but they usually matter a lot less than they could, and a lot less in America than they do in other industrialized democracies. That's because of the nature of the electoral rules and the unique history of the South.
Q: Does social science research have anything useful to say about making progressive social change more effective?
A: Yes, it does, but few if any people pay much attention to that research.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Week of April 21 - 23
Continue to work on your papers, I will give you a reading assignment in class on Tuesday.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Mid Term Results!!!
Great Job on your Mid Terms.
Grades are as follows.... 10 A's, 16 B's, 2 C's, 0 D's, and 2 F's.
You will receive your exams on Tuesday.
Assignment for Tuesday and Thursday will be posted soon.
...
Grades are as follows.... 10 A's, 16 B's, 2 C's, 0 D's, and 2 F's.
You will receive your exams on Tuesday.
Assignment for Tuesday and Thursday will be posted soon.
...
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Chapter 14 for 3/31
Read Chapter 14 on Religion.
Focus on Durkheim and the Sociological Approach to Religion, and the Integrative Function of Religion, and the Marxist Critique of Religion.
Also, focus on The Weberian Thesis.
Take notes on the above topics while you read. This is all you have to know about this chapter, make sure you take notes!!!
Also, Mid-term this thursday!!!!!
........
Focus on Durkheim and the Sociological Approach to Religion, and the Integrative Function of Religion, and the Marxist Critique of Religion.
Also, focus on The Weberian Thesis.
Take notes on the above topics while you read. This is all you have to know about this chapter, make sure you take notes!!!
Also, Mid-term this thursday!!!!!
........
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Written Assignment #7
Answer these questions from Chapter 13.
1. What functions does the family perform for society?
2. Does divorce have a more detrimental effect on boys than girls?
3. Should gay couples and unmarried heterosexual couples have the same legal protections and benefits as married couples?
Assignment is due Wednesday March 25.
1. What functions does the family perform for society?
2. Does divorce have a more detrimental effect on boys than girls?
3. Should gay couples and unmarried heterosexual couples have the same legal protections and benefits as married couples?
Assignment is due Wednesday March 25.
Article: "The American Family" read for Thurs 3/26
The American Family
Life Magazine, November 1999. By Stephanie Coontz.
New research about an old institution challenges the conventional wisdom that the family today is worse off than in the past.
As the century comes to an end, many observers fear for the future of America's families. Our divorce rate is the highest in the world, and the percentage of unmarried women is significantly higher than in 1960. Educated women are having fewer babies, while immigrant children flood the schools, demanding to be taught in their native language. Harvard University reports that only 4 percent of its applicants can write a proper sentence. There's an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among men. Many streets in urban neighborhoods are littered with cocaine vials. Youths call heroin "happy dust". Even in small towns, people have easy access to addictive drugs, and drug abuse by middle class wives is skyrocketing. Police see 16-year-old killers, 12-year-old prostitutes, and gang members as young as 11. America at the end of the 1990s? No, America at the end of the 1890s.
The litany of complaints may sound familiar, but the truth is that many things were worse at the start of this century than they are today. Then, thousands of children worked full-time in mines, mills and sweatshops. Most workers labored 10 hours a day, often six days a week, which left them little time or energy for family life. Race riots were more frequent and more deadly than those experienced by recent generations. Women couldn't vote, and their wages were so low that many turned to prostitution. In 1900 a white child had one chance in three of losing a brother or sister before age 15, and a black child had a fifty-fifty chance of seeing a sibling die. Children's-aid groups reported widespread abuse and neglect by parents. Men who deserted or divorced their wives rarely paid child support. And only 6 percent of the children graduated from high school, compared with 88 percent today.
Why do so many people think American families are facing worse problems now than in the past? Partly it's because we compare the complex and diverse families of the 1900s with the seemingly more standard-issue ones of the 1950s, a unique decade when every long-term trend of the 20th century was temporarily reversed. In the 1950s, for the first time in 100 years, the divorce rate fell while marriage and fertility rates soared, creating a boom in nuclear-family living. The percentage of foreign-born individuals in the country decreased. And the debates over social and cultural issues that had divided Americans for 150 years were silenced, suggesting a national consensus on family values and norms.
Some nostalgia for the 1950s is understandable: Life looked pretty good in comparison with the hardships of the Great Depression and World War II. The GI Bill gave a generation of young fathers a college education and a subsidized mortgage on a new house. For the first time, a majority of men could support a family and buy a home without pooling their earnings with those of other family members. Many Americans built a stable family life on these foundations.
But much nostalgia for the 1950s is a result of selective amnesia-the same process that makes childhood memories of summer vacations grow sunnier with each passing year. The superficial sameness Of 1950s family life was achieved through censorship, coercion and discrimination. People with unconventional beliefs faced governmental investigation and arbitrary firings. African Americans and Mexican Americans were prevented from voting in some states by literacy tests that were not administered to whites. Individuals who didn't follow the rigid gender and sexual rules of the day were ostracized.
Leave It to Beaver did not reflect the real-life experience of most American families. While many moved into the middle class during the 1950s, poverty remained more widespread than in the worst of our last three recessions. More children went hungry, and poverty rates for the elderly were more than twice as high as today's.
Even in the white middle class, not every woman was as serenely happy with her lot as June Cleaver was on TV. Housewives of the 1950s may have been less rushed than today's working mothers, but they were more likely to suffer anxiety and depression. In many states. women couldn't serve on juries or get loans or credit cards in their own names.
And not every kid was as wholesome as Beaver Cleaver, whose mischievous antics could be handled by Dad at the dinner table. In 1955 alone, Congress discussed 200 bills aimed at curbing juvenile delinquency. Three years later, LIFE reported that urban teachers were being terrorized by their students. The drugs that were so freely available in 1900 had been outlawed, but many children grew up in families ravaged by alcohol and barbiturate abuse.
Rates of unwed childbearing tripled between 1940 and 1958, but most Americans didn't notice because unwed mothers generally left town, gave their babies up for adoption and returned home as if nothing had happened. Troubled youths were encouraged to drop out of high school. Mentally handicapped children were warehoused in institutions like the Home for idiotic and Imbecilic Children in Kansas, where a woman whose sister had lived there for most of the 1950s once took me. Wives routinely told pollsters that being disparaged or ignored by their husbands was a normal part of a happier-than-average marriage. Denial extended to other areas of life as well. In the early 1900s doctors refused to believe that the cases of gonorrhea and syphilis they saw in young girls could have been caused by sexual abuse. Instead, they reasoned, girls could get these diseases from toilet seats, a myth that terrified generations of mothers and daughters. In the 1950s, psychiatrists dismissed incest reports as Oedipal fantasies on the part of children. Spousal rape was legal throughout the period, and wife beating was not taken seriously by authorities. Much of what we now label child abuse was accepted as a normal part of parental discipline. Physicians saw no reason to question parents who claimed that their child's broken bones had been caused by a fall from a tree. Thingsmom worse at the turn at the Last century than they are today. Most workers labored 10 hours a day, six days a week, leaving little time for family life.
There are plenty of stresses in modem family life, but one reason they seem worse is that we no longer sweep them under the rug. Another is that we have higher expectations of parenting and marriage. That's a good thing. We're right to be concerned about inattentive parents, conflicted marriages, antisocial values, teen violence and child abuse. But we need to realize that many of our worries reflect how much better we want to be, not how much better we used to be.
Fathers in intact families are spending more time with their children than at any other point in the past 100 years. Although the number of hours the average woman spends at home with her children has declined since the early 1900s, there has been a decrease in the number of children per family and an increase in individual attention to each child. As a result, mothers today, including working moms, spend almost twice as much time with each child as mothers did in the 1920s. People who raised children in the 1940s and 1950s typically report that their own adult children and grandchildren communicate far better with their kids and spend more time helping with homework than they did-even as they complain that other parents today are doing a worse job than in the past.
Despite the rise in youth violence from the 1960s to the early 1900s, America's children are also safer now than they've ever been. An infant was four times more likely to die in the 1950s than today. A parent then was three times more likely than a modern one to preside at the funeral of a child under the age Of 15, and 27 percent more likely to lose an older teen to death.
If we look back over the last millennium, we can see that families have always been diverse and in flux. In each Period, families have solved one set of problems only to face a new array of challenges. What works for a family in one economic and cultural setting doesn't work for a family in another. What's helpful at one stage of a family's life may be destructive at the next stage. if there is one lesson to be drawn from the last millennium of family history, it's that families are always having to play catch-up with a changing world.
Many of our worries today reflect how much better we want to be, not how much better we used to be. Take the issue of working mothers. Families in which mothers spend as much time earning a living as they do raising children are nothing new. They were the norm throughout most of the last two millennia. in the 19th century, married women in the United States began a withdrawal from the workforce, but for most families this was made possible only by sending their children out to work instead. When child labor was abolished, married women began reentering the workforce in ever larger numbers.
For a few decades, the decline in child Labor was greater than the growth of women's employment. The result was an aberration: the malebreadwinner family. In the 1920s, for the first time a bare majority of American children grew up in families where the husband provided all the income, the wife stayed home full-time, and they and their siblings went to school instead of work. During the 1950s, almost two thirds of children grew up in such families, an all-time high. Yet that same decade saw an acceleration of workforce participation by wives and mothers that soon made the dual-earner family the norm, a trend not likely to be reversed in the next century.
What's new is not that women make half their families' living, but that for the first time they have substantial control over their own income, along with the social freedom to remain single or to leave an unsatisfactory marriage. Also new is the declining proportion of their lives that people devote to rearing children, both because they have fewer kids and because they are living longer. Until about 1940, the typical marriage was broken by the death of one partner within a few years after the last child left home. Today, couples can look forward to spending more than two decades together after the children leave. The growing length of time partners spend with only each other for company has made many individuals less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while women's economic independence makes it less essential for them to do so. It is no wonder that divorce has risen steadily since 1900. Disregarding a spurt in 1946, a dip in the 1950s and another peak around 1980, the divorce rate is just where you'd expect to find it, based on the rate of increase from 1900 to 1950. Today, 40 percent of all marriages will end in divorce before a couple's 40th anniversary. Yet despite this high divorce rate, expanded life expectancies mean that more couples are reaching that anniversary than ever before. Families and individuals in contemporary America have more life choices than in the past That makes it easier for some to consider dangerous or unpopular options. But it also makes success easier for many families that never would have had a chance before-interracial, gay or lesbian, and single-mother families, for example. And it expands horizons for most families.
Women's new options are good not just for themselves but for their children. While some people say that women who choose to work are selfish, it turns out that maternal self-sacrifice is not good for children. Kids do better when their mothers are happy with their lives, whether their satisfaction comes from being a full-time homemaker or from having a job.
Largely because of women's new roles at work, men are doing more at home. Although most men still do less housework than their wives, the gap has been halved since the 1960s. Today, 49 percent of couples say they share childcare equally, compared with 25 percent in 1985.The biggest problem is not that our families have changed too much but that our institutions have changed too little.
Men's greater involvement at home is good for their relationships with their partners, and also good for their children. Hands-on fathers make better parents than men who let their wives do all the nurturing and childcare: They raise sons who are more expressive and daughters who are more likely to do well in school, especially in math and science.
In 1900, fife expectancy was 47 years, and only 4 percent of the population was 65 or older. Today, life expectancy is 76 years, and by 2025, about 20 percent of Americans will be 65 or older. For the first time, a generation of adults must plan for the needs of both their parents and their children. Most Americans are responding with remarkable grace. One in four households gives the equivalent of a full day a week or more in unpaid care to an aging relative, and more than half say they expect to do so in the next 10 years. Older people are less likely to be impoverished or incapacitated by illness than in the past, and they have more opportunity to develop a relationship with their grandchildren.
Even some of the choices that worry us the most are turning out to be manageable. Divorce rates are likely to remain high, but more noncustodial parents are staying in touch with their children. Child-support receipts are up. And a lower proportion of kids from divorced families are exhibiting problems than in earlier decades Stepfamilies are learning to maximize children's access to supportive adults rather than cutting them off from one side of the family.1955 A family poses in Seattle. Husbands today are doing more housework.Out-of-wedlock births are also high, however and this will probably continue because the age of first marriage for women has risen to an all-time high Of 25, almost five years above what it was in the 1900s. Women who marry at an older age are less likely to divorce, but they have more years when they are at risk-or at choice for a nonmarital birth.
Nevertheless, births to teenagers have fallen from 50 percent of all nonmarital births in the to just 30 percent today. A growing late 1970s proportion of women who have a nonmarital birth are in their twenties and thirties and usually have more economic and educational resources than unwed mothers of the past. While two involved parents are generally better than one, a mother's personal maturity, along with her educational and economic status, is a better predictor of how well her child will turn out than her marital status. We should no longer assume that children raised by single parents face debilitating disadvantages.
As we begin to understand the range of sizes, shapes and colors that today's families come in, we find that the differences within family types are more important than the differences between them. No particular family form guarantees success, and no particular form is doomed to fail. How a family functions on the inside is more important than how it looks from the outside.
The biggest problem facing most families as this century draws to a close is not that our families have changed too much but that our institutions have changed too little. America's work policies are 50 years out of date, designed for a time when most moms weren't in the workforce and most dads didn't understand the joys of being involved in childcare. Our school schedules are 150 years out of date, designed for a time when kids needed to be home to help with the milking and haying. And many political leaders feel they have to decide whether to help parents stay home longer with their kids or invest in better childcare, preschool and afterschool programs, when most industrialized nations have long since learned it's possible to do both.
So America's social institutions have some Y2K bugs to iron out. But for the most part, our families are ready for the next millennium.
Life Magazine, November 1999. By Stephanie Coontz.
New research about an old institution challenges the conventional wisdom that the family today is worse off than in the past.
As the century comes to an end, many observers fear for the future of America's families. Our divorce rate is the highest in the world, and the percentage of unmarried women is significantly higher than in 1960. Educated women are having fewer babies, while immigrant children flood the schools, demanding to be taught in their native language. Harvard University reports that only 4 percent of its applicants can write a proper sentence. There's an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among men. Many streets in urban neighborhoods are littered with cocaine vials. Youths call heroin "happy dust". Even in small towns, people have easy access to addictive drugs, and drug abuse by middle class wives is skyrocketing. Police see 16-year-old killers, 12-year-old prostitutes, and gang members as young as 11. America at the end of the 1990s? No, America at the end of the 1890s.
The litany of complaints may sound familiar, but the truth is that many things were worse at the start of this century than they are today. Then, thousands of children worked full-time in mines, mills and sweatshops. Most workers labored 10 hours a day, often six days a week, which left them little time or energy for family life. Race riots were more frequent and more deadly than those experienced by recent generations. Women couldn't vote, and their wages were so low that many turned to prostitution. In 1900 a white child had one chance in three of losing a brother or sister before age 15, and a black child had a fifty-fifty chance of seeing a sibling die. Children's-aid groups reported widespread abuse and neglect by parents. Men who deserted or divorced their wives rarely paid child support. And only 6 percent of the children graduated from high school, compared with 88 percent today.
Why do so many people think American families are facing worse problems now than in the past? Partly it's because we compare the complex and diverse families of the 1900s with the seemingly more standard-issue ones of the 1950s, a unique decade when every long-term trend of the 20th century was temporarily reversed. In the 1950s, for the first time in 100 years, the divorce rate fell while marriage and fertility rates soared, creating a boom in nuclear-family living. The percentage of foreign-born individuals in the country decreased. And the debates over social and cultural issues that had divided Americans for 150 years were silenced, suggesting a national consensus on family values and norms.
Some nostalgia for the 1950s is understandable: Life looked pretty good in comparison with the hardships of the Great Depression and World War II. The GI Bill gave a generation of young fathers a college education and a subsidized mortgage on a new house. For the first time, a majority of men could support a family and buy a home without pooling their earnings with those of other family members. Many Americans built a stable family life on these foundations.
But much nostalgia for the 1950s is a result of selective amnesia-the same process that makes childhood memories of summer vacations grow sunnier with each passing year. The superficial sameness Of 1950s family life was achieved through censorship, coercion and discrimination. People with unconventional beliefs faced governmental investigation and arbitrary firings. African Americans and Mexican Americans were prevented from voting in some states by literacy tests that were not administered to whites. Individuals who didn't follow the rigid gender and sexual rules of the day were ostracized.
Leave It to Beaver did not reflect the real-life experience of most American families. While many moved into the middle class during the 1950s, poverty remained more widespread than in the worst of our last three recessions. More children went hungry, and poverty rates for the elderly were more than twice as high as today's.
Even in the white middle class, not every woman was as serenely happy with her lot as June Cleaver was on TV. Housewives of the 1950s may have been less rushed than today's working mothers, but they were more likely to suffer anxiety and depression. In many states. women couldn't serve on juries or get loans or credit cards in their own names.
And not every kid was as wholesome as Beaver Cleaver, whose mischievous antics could be handled by Dad at the dinner table. In 1955 alone, Congress discussed 200 bills aimed at curbing juvenile delinquency. Three years later, LIFE reported that urban teachers were being terrorized by their students. The drugs that were so freely available in 1900 had been outlawed, but many children grew up in families ravaged by alcohol and barbiturate abuse.
Rates of unwed childbearing tripled between 1940 and 1958, but most Americans didn't notice because unwed mothers generally left town, gave their babies up for adoption and returned home as if nothing had happened. Troubled youths were encouraged to drop out of high school. Mentally handicapped children were warehoused in institutions like the Home for idiotic and Imbecilic Children in Kansas, where a woman whose sister had lived there for most of the 1950s once took me. Wives routinely told pollsters that being disparaged or ignored by their husbands was a normal part of a happier-than-average marriage. Denial extended to other areas of life as well. In the early 1900s doctors refused to believe that the cases of gonorrhea and syphilis they saw in young girls could have been caused by sexual abuse. Instead, they reasoned, girls could get these diseases from toilet seats, a myth that terrified generations of mothers and daughters. In the 1950s, psychiatrists dismissed incest reports as Oedipal fantasies on the part of children. Spousal rape was legal throughout the period, and wife beating was not taken seriously by authorities. Much of what we now label child abuse was accepted as a normal part of parental discipline. Physicians saw no reason to question parents who claimed that their child's broken bones had been caused by a fall from a tree. Thingsmom worse at the turn at the Last century than they are today. Most workers labored 10 hours a day, six days a week, leaving little time for family life.
There are plenty of stresses in modem family life, but one reason they seem worse is that we no longer sweep them under the rug. Another is that we have higher expectations of parenting and marriage. That's a good thing. We're right to be concerned about inattentive parents, conflicted marriages, antisocial values, teen violence and child abuse. But we need to realize that many of our worries reflect how much better we want to be, not how much better we used to be.
Fathers in intact families are spending more time with their children than at any other point in the past 100 years. Although the number of hours the average woman spends at home with her children has declined since the early 1900s, there has been a decrease in the number of children per family and an increase in individual attention to each child. As a result, mothers today, including working moms, spend almost twice as much time with each child as mothers did in the 1920s. People who raised children in the 1940s and 1950s typically report that their own adult children and grandchildren communicate far better with their kids and spend more time helping with homework than they did-even as they complain that other parents today are doing a worse job than in the past.
Despite the rise in youth violence from the 1960s to the early 1900s, America's children are also safer now than they've ever been. An infant was four times more likely to die in the 1950s than today. A parent then was three times more likely than a modern one to preside at the funeral of a child under the age Of 15, and 27 percent more likely to lose an older teen to death.
If we look back over the last millennium, we can see that families have always been diverse and in flux. In each Period, families have solved one set of problems only to face a new array of challenges. What works for a family in one economic and cultural setting doesn't work for a family in another. What's helpful at one stage of a family's life may be destructive at the next stage. if there is one lesson to be drawn from the last millennium of family history, it's that families are always having to play catch-up with a changing world.
Many of our worries today reflect how much better we want to be, not how much better we used to be. Take the issue of working mothers. Families in which mothers spend as much time earning a living as they do raising children are nothing new. They were the norm throughout most of the last two millennia. in the 19th century, married women in the United States began a withdrawal from the workforce, but for most families this was made possible only by sending their children out to work instead. When child labor was abolished, married women began reentering the workforce in ever larger numbers.
For a few decades, the decline in child Labor was greater than the growth of women's employment. The result was an aberration: the malebreadwinner family. In the 1920s, for the first time a bare majority of American children grew up in families where the husband provided all the income, the wife stayed home full-time, and they and their siblings went to school instead of work. During the 1950s, almost two thirds of children grew up in such families, an all-time high. Yet that same decade saw an acceleration of workforce participation by wives and mothers that soon made the dual-earner family the norm, a trend not likely to be reversed in the next century.
What's new is not that women make half their families' living, but that for the first time they have substantial control over their own income, along with the social freedom to remain single or to leave an unsatisfactory marriage. Also new is the declining proportion of their lives that people devote to rearing children, both because they have fewer kids and because they are living longer. Until about 1940, the typical marriage was broken by the death of one partner within a few years after the last child left home. Today, couples can look forward to spending more than two decades together after the children leave. The growing length of time partners spend with only each other for company has made many individuals less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while women's economic independence makes it less essential for them to do so. It is no wonder that divorce has risen steadily since 1900. Disregarding a spurt in 1946, a dip in the 1950s and another peak around 1980, the divorce rate is just where you'd expect to find it, based on the rate of increase from 1900 to 1950. Today, 40 percent of all marriages will end in divorce before a couple's 40th anniversary. Yet despite this high divorce rate, expanded life expectancies mean that more couples are reaching that anniversary than ever before. Families and individuals in contemporary America have more life choices than in the past That makes it easier for some to consider dangerous or unpopular options. But it also makes success easier for many families that never would have had a chance before-interracial, gay or lesbian, and single-mother families, for example. And it expands horizons for most families.
Women's new options are good not just for themselves but for their children. While some people say that women who choose to work are selfish, it turns out that maternal self-sacrifice is not good for children. Kids do better when their mothers are happy with their lives, whether their satisfaction comes from being a full-time homemaker or from having a job.
Largely because of women's new roles at work, men are doing more at home. Although most men still do less housework than their wives, the gap has been halved since the 1960s. Today, 49 percent of couples say they share childcare equally, compared with 25 percent in 1985.The biggest problem is not that our families have changed too much but that our institutions have changed too little.
Men's greater involvement at home is good for their relationships with their partners, and also good for their children. Hands-on fathers make better parents than men who let their wives do all the nurturing and childcare: They raise sons who are more expressive and daughters who are more likely to do well in school, especially in math and science.
In 1900, fife expectancy was 47 years, and only 4 percent of the population was 65 or older. Today, life expectancy is 76 years, and by 2025, about 20 percent of Americans will be 65 or older. For the first time, a generation of adults must plan for the needs of both their parents and their children. Most Americans are responding with remarkable grace. One in four households gives the equivalent of a full day a week or more in unpaid care to an aging relative, and more than half say they expect to do so in the next 10 years. Older people are less likely to be impoverished or incapacitated by illness than in the past, and they have more opportunity to develop a relationship with their grandchildren.
Even some of the choices that worry us the most are turning out to be manageable. Divorce rates are likely to remain high, but more noncustodial parents are staying in touch with their children. Child-support receipts are up. And a lower proportion of kids from divorced families are exhibiting problems than in earlier decades Stepfamilies are learning to maximize children's access to supportive adults rather than cutting them off from one side of the family.1955 A family poses in Seattle. Husbands today are doing more housework.Out-of-wedlock births are also high, however and this will probably continue because the age of first marriage for women has risen to an all-time high Of 25, almost five years above what it was in the 1900s. Women who marry at an older age are less likely to divorce, but they have more years when they are at risk-or at choice for a nonmarital birth.
Nevertheless, births to teenagers have fallen from 50 percent of all nonmarital births in the to just 30 percent today. A growing late 1970s proportion of women who have a nonmarital birth are in their twenties and thirties and usually have more economic and educational resources than unwed mothers of the past. While two involved parents are generally better than one, a mother's personal maturity, along with her educational and economic status, is a better predictor of how well her child will turn out than her marital status. We should no longer assume that children raised by single parents face debilitating disadvantages.
As we begin to understand the range of sizes, shapes and colors that today's families come in, we find that the differences within family types are more important than the differences between them. No particular family form guarantees success, and no particular form is doomed to fail. How a family functions on the inside is more important than how it looks from the outside.
The biggest problem facing most families as this century draws to a close is not that our families have changed too much but that our institutions have changed too little. America's work policies are 50 years out of date, designed for a time when most moms weren't in the workforce and most dads didn't understand the joys of being involved in childcare. Our school schedules are 150 years out of date, designed for a time when kids needed to be home to help with the milking and haying. And many political leaders feel they have to decide whether to help parents stay home longer with their kids or invest in better childcare, preschool and afterschool programs, when most industrialized nations have long since learned it's possible to do both.
So America's social institutions have some Y2K bugs to iron out. But for the most part, our families are ready for the next millennium.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Chapter 13
Read Chapter 13 for Wednesday & Thursday. 3/25 & 3/26
This topic "The Family" is on the mid-term.
This topic "The Family" is on the mid-term.
Chapter 10
Read this chapter for Tuesday 3/24.
Take notes on the Rodney King incident, this is a mid-term question.
Also, focus on racial groups, ethnic groups, and minority groups.
What is pluralism? page 285.
Take notes on the Rodney King incident, this is a mid-term question.
Also, focus on racial groups, ethnic groups, and minority groups.
What is pluralism? page 285.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Reading Assignment for Wed 3/18
Read the article "From Welfare to Work" highlight key points and take notes, make sure you bring the article to class!!
No written assignment this week!!!
Make sure you read all the assignment I gave to you in class today!!!
No written assignment this week!!!
Make sure you read all the assignment I gave to you in class today!!!
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Reading Assignment "Where Bias Begins"
Read this article, and take notes for discussion in class!!
Where bias begins: The truth about stereotypes
Discusses automatic or implicit stereotyping. Information on a test which aims to reveal a person's hidden biases; Information on an experiment which showed a person's predisposition to prejudice; Theory on the source of bias.
Psychologists once believed that only bigoted people used stereotypes. Now the study of unconscious bias is revealing the unsettling truth: We all use stereotypes, all the time, without knowing it. We have met the enemy of equality, and the enemy is us.
Mahzarin Banaji doesn't fit anybody's ideal of a racist. A psychology professor at Yale University, she studies stereotypes for a living. And as a woman and a member of a minority ethnic group, she has felt firsthand the sting of discrimination. Yet when she took one of her own tests of unconscious bias. "I showed very strong prejudices," she says. "It was truly a disconcerting experience." And an illuminating one. When Banaji was in graduate school in the early 1980s, theories about stereotypes were concerned only with their explicit expression: outright and unabashed racism, sexism, anti-Semitism. But in the years since, a new approach to stereotypes has shattered that simple notion. The bias Banaji and her colleagues are studying is something far more subtle, and more insidious: what's known as automatic or implicit stereotyping, which, they find, we do all the time without knowing it. Though out-and-out bigotry may be on the decline, says Banaji, "if anything, stereotyping is a bigger problem than we ever imagined."
Previously, researchers who studied stereotyping had simply asked people to record their feelings about minority groups and had used their answers as an index of their attitudes. Psychologists now understand that these conscious replies are only half the story. How progressive a person seems to be on the surface bears little or no relation to how prejudiced he or she is on an unconscious level--so that a bleeding-heart liberal might harbor just as many biases as a neo-Nazi skinhead.
As surprising as these findings are, they confirmed the hunches of many students of human behavior. "Twenty years ago, we hypothesized that there were people who said they were not prejudiced but who really did have unconscious negative stereotypes and beliefs," says psychologist lack Dovidio, Ph.D., of Colgate University "It was like theorizing about the existence of a virus, and then one day seeing it under a microscope."
The test that exposed Banaji's hidden biases--and that this writer took as well, with equally dismaying results--is typical of the ones used by automatic stereotype researchers. It presents the subject with a series of positive or negative adjectives, each paired with a characteristically "white" or "black" name. As the name and word appear together on a computer screen, the person taking the test presses a key, indicating whether the word is good or bad. Meanwhile, the computer records the speed of each response.
A glance at subjects' response times reveals a startling phenomenon: Most people who participate in the experiment--even some African-Americans--respond more quickly when a positive word is paired with a white name or a negative word with a black name. Because our minds are more accustomed to making these associations, says Banaji, they process them more rapidly. Though the words and names aren't subliminal, they are presented so quickly that a subject's ability to make deliberate choices is diminished--allowing his or her underlying assumptions to show through. The same technique can be used to measure stereotypes about many different social groups, such as homosexuals, women, and the elderly.
THE UNCONSCIOUS COMES INTO FOCUS
From these tiny differences in reaction speed--a matter of a few hundred milliseconds--the study of automatic stereotyping was born. Its immediate ancestor was the cognitive revolution of the 1970s, an explosion of psychological research into the way people think. After decades dominated by the study of observable behavior, scientists wanted a closer look at the more mysterious operation of the human brain. And the development of computers--which enabled scientists to display information very quickly and to measure minute discrepancies in reaction time--permitted a peek into the unconscious.
At the same time, the study of cognition was also illuminating the nature of stereotypes themselves. Research done after World War II--mostly by European emigres struggling to understand how the Holocaust had happened--concluded that stereotypes were used only by a particular type of person: rigid, repressed, authoritarian. Borrowing from the psychoanalytic perspective then in vogue, these theorists suggested that biased behavior emerged out of internal conflicts caused by inadequate parenting.
The cognitive approach refused to let the rest of us off the hook. It made the simple but profound point that we all use categories--of people, places, things--to make sense of the world around us. "Our ability to categorize and evaluate is an important part of human intelligence," says Banaji. "Without it, we couldn't survive." But stereotypes are too much of a good thing. In the course of stereotyping, a useful category--say, women--becomes freighted with additional associations, usually negative. "Stereotypes are categories that have gone too far," says John Bargh, Ph.D., of New York University. "When we use stereotypes, we take in the gender, the age, the color of the skin of the person before us, and our minds respond with messages that say hostile, stupid, slow, weak. Those qualities aren't out there in the environment. They don't reflect reality."
Bargh thinks that stereotypes may emerge from what social psychologists call in-group/out-group dynamics. Humans, like other species, need to feel that they are part of a group, and as villages, clans, and other traditional groupings have broken down, our identities have attached themselves to more ambiguous classifications, such as race and class. We want to feel good about the group we belong to--and one way of doing so is to denigrate all those who who aren't in it. And while we tend to see members of our own group as individuals, we view those in out-groups as an undifferentiated--stereotyped--mass. The categories we use have changed, but it seems that stereotyping itself is bred in the bone.
Though a small minority of scientists argues that stereotypes are usually accurate and can be relied upon without reservations, most disagree--and vehemently. "Even if there is a kernel of truth in the stereotype, you're still applying a generalization about a group to an individual, which is always incorrect," says Bargh. Accuracy aside, some believe that the use of stereotypes is simply unjust. "In a democratic society, people should be judged as individuals and not as members of a group," Banaji argues. "Stereotyping flies in the face of that ideal."
PREDISPOSED TO PREJUDICE
The problem, as Banaji's own research shows, is that people can't seem to help it. A recent experiment provides a good illustration. Banaji and her colleague, Anthony Greenwald, Ph.D., showed people a list of names--some famous, some not. The next day, the subjects returned to the lab and were shown a second list, which mixed names from the first list with new ones. Asked to identify which were famous, they picked out the Margaret Meads and the Miles Davises--but they also chose some of the names on the first list, which retained a lingering familiarity that they mistook for fame. (Psychologists call this the "famous overnight-effect.") By a margin of two-to-one, these suddenly "famous" people were male.
Participants weren't aware that they were preferring male names to female names, Banaji stresses. They were simply drawing on an unconscious stereotype of men as more important and influential than women. Something similar happened when she showed subjects a list of people who might be criminals: without knowing they were doing so, participants picked out an overwhelming number of African-American names. Banaji calls this kind of stereotyping implicit, because people know they are making a judgment--but just aren't aware of the basis upon which they are making it.
Even further below awareness is something that psychologists call automatic processing, in which stereotypes are triggered by the slightest interaction or encounter. An experiment conducted by Bargh required a group of white participants to perform a tedious computer task. While performing the task, some of the participants were subliminally exposed to pictures of African-Americans with neutral expressions. When the subjects were then asked to do the task over again, the ones who had been exposed to the faces reacted with more hostility to the request--because, Bargh believes, they were responding in kind to the hostility which is part of the African-American stereotype. Bargh calls this the "immediate hostile reaction," which he believes can have a realeffect on race relations. When African-Americans accurately perceive the hostile expressions that their white counterparts are unaware of, they may respond with hostility of their own--thereby perpetuating the stereotype.
Of course, we aren't completely under the sway of our unconscious. Scientists think that the automatic activation of a stereotype is immediately followed by a conscious check on unacceptable thoughts--at least in people who think that they are not prejudiced. This internal censor successfully restrains overtly biased responses. But there's still the danger of leakage, which often shows up in non-verbal behavior: our expressions, our stance, how far away we stand, how much eye contact we make.
The gap between what we say and what we do can lead African-Americans and whites to come away with very different impressions of the same encounter, says Jack Dovidio. "If I'm a white person talking to an African-American, I'm probably monitoring my conscious beliefs very carefully and making sure everything I say agrees with all the positive things I want to express," he says. "And I usually believe I'm pretty successful because I hear the right words coming out of my mouth." The listener who is paying attention to non-verbal behavior, however, may be getting quite the opposite message. An African-American student of Dovidio's recently told him that when she was growing up, her mother had taught her to observe how white people moved to gauge their true feelings toward blacks. "Her mother was a very astute amateur psychologist--and about 20 years ahead of me." he remarks.
WHERE DOES BIAS BEGIN?
So where exactly do these stealth stereotypes come from? Though automatic-stereotype researchers often refer to the unconscious, they don't mean the Freudian notion of a seething mass of thoughts and desires, only some of which are deemed presentable enough to be admitted to the conscious mind. In fact, the cognitive model holds that information flows in exactly the opposite direction: connections made often enough in the conscious mind eventually become unconscious. Says Bargh: "If conscious choice and decision making are not needed, they go away. Ideas recede from consciousness into the unconscious over time."
Much of what enters our consciousness, of course, comes from the culture around us. And like the culture, it seems that our minds are split on the subjects of race, gender, class, sexual orientation. "We not only mirror the ambivalence we see in society, but also mirror it in precisely the same way," says Dovidio. Our society talks out loud about justice, equality, and egalitarianism, and most Americans accept these values as their own. At the same time, such equality exists only as an ideal, and that fact is not lost on our unconscious. Images of women as sexobjects, footage of African-American criminals on the six o'clock news,--"this is knowledge we cannot escape," explains Banaji. "We didn't choose to know it, but it still affects our behavior."
We learn the subtext of our culture's messages early. By five years of age, says Margo Monteith, Ph.D., many children have definite and entrenched stereotypes about blacks, women, and other social groups. Adds Monteith, professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky: "Children don't have a choice about accepting or rejecting these conceptions, since they're acquired well before they have the cognitive abilities or experiences to form their own beliefs." And no matter how progressive the parents, they must compete with all the forces that would promote and perpetuate these stereotypes: peer pressure, mass media, the actual balance of power in society. In fact, prejudice may be as much a result as a cause of this imbalance. We create stereotypes--African-Americans are lazy, women are emotional--to explain why things are the way they are. As Dovidio notes, "Stereotypes don't have to be true to serve a purpose."
WHY CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG?
The idea of unconscious bias does clear up some nettlesome contradictions. "It accounts for a lot of people's ambivalence toward others who are different, a lot of their inconsistencies in behavior," says Dovidio. "It helps explain how good people can do bad things." But it also prompts some uncomfortable realizations. Because our conscious and unconscious beliefs may be very different--and because behavior often follows the lead of the latter--"good intentions aren't enough," as John Bargh puts it. In fact, he believes that they count for very little. "I don't think free will exists," he says, bluntly--because what feels like the exercise of free will may be only the application of unconscious assumptions.
Not only may we be unable to control our biased responses, we may not even be aware that we have them. "We have to rely on our memories and our awareness of what we're doing to have a connection to reality," says Bargh. "But when it comes to automatic processing, those cues can be deceptive." Likewise, we can't always be sure how biased others are. "We all have this belief that the important thing about prejudice is the external expression of it," says Banaji. "That's going to be hard to give up."
One thing is certain: We can't claim that we've eradicated prejudice just because its outright expression has waned. What's more, the strategies that were so effective in reducing that sort of bias won't work on unconscious beliefs. "What this research is saying is that we are going to have to change dramatically the way we think we can influence people's behaviors," says Banaji. "It would be naive to think that exhortation is enough." Exhortation, education, political protest--all of these hammer away at our conscious beliefs while leaving the bedrock below untouched. Banaji notes, however, that one traditional remedy for discrimination--affirmative action--may still be effective since it bypasses our unconsciously compromised judgment.
Where bias begins: The truth about stereotypes
Discusses automatic or implicit stereotyping. Information on a test which aims to reveal a person's hidden biases; Information on an experiment which showed a person's predisposition to prejudice; Theory on the source of bias.
Psychologists once believed that only bigoted people used stereotypes. Now the study of unconscious bias is revealing the unsettling truth: We all use stereotypes, all the time, without knowing it. We have met the enemy of equality, and the enemy is us.
Mahzarin Banaji doesn't fit anybody's ideal of a racist. A psychology professor at Yale University, she studies stereotypes for a living. And as a woman and a member of a minority ethnic group, she has felt firsthand the sting of discrimination. Yet when she took one of her own tests of unconscious bias. "I showed very strong prejudices," she says. "It was truly a disconcerting experience." And an illuminating one. When Banaji was in graduate school in the early 1980s, theories about stereotypes were concerned only with their explicit expression: outright and unabashed racism, sexism, anti-Semitism. But in the years since, a new approach to stereotypes has shattered that simple notion. The bias Banaji and her colleagues are studying is something far more subtle, and more insidious: what's known as automatic or implicit stereotyping, which, they find, we do all the time without knowing it. Though out-and-out bigotry may be on the decline, says Banaji, "if anything, stereotyping is a bigger problem than we ever imagined."
Previously, researchers who studied stereotyping had simply asked people to record their feelings about minority groups and had used their answers as an index of their attitudes. Psychologists now understand that these conscious replies are only half the story. How progressive a person seems to be on the surface bears little or no relation to how prejudiced he or she is on an unconscious level--so that a bleeding-heart liberal might harbor just as many biases as a neo-Nazi skinhead.
As surprising as these findings are, they confirmed the hunches of many students of human behavior. "Twenty years ago, we hypothesized that there were people who said they were not prejudiced but who really did have unconscious negative stereotypes and beliefs," says psychologist lack Dovidio, Ph.D., of Colgate University "It was like theorizing about the existence of a virus, and then one day seeing it under a microscope."
The test that exposed Banaji's hidden biases--and that this writer took as well, with equally dismaying results--is typical of the ones used by automatic stereotype researchers. It presents the subject with a series of positive or negative adjectives, each paired with a characteristically "white" or "black" name. As the name and word appear together on a computer screen, the person taking the test presses a key, indicating whether the word is good or bad. Meanwhile, the computer records the speed of each response.
A glance at subjects' response times reveals a startling phenomenon: Most people who participate in the experiment--even some African-Americans--respond more quickly when a positive word is paired with a white name or a negative word with a black name. Because our minds are more accustomed to making these associations, says Banaji, they process them more rapidly. Though the words and names aren't subliminal, they are presented so quickly that a subject's ability to make deliberate choices is diminished--allowing his or her underlying assumptions to show through. The same technique can be used to measure stereotypes about many different social groups, such as homosexuals, women, and the elderly.
THE UNCONSCIOUS COMES INTO FOCUS
From these tiny differences in reaction speed--a matter of a few hundred milliseconds--the study of automatic stereotyping was born. Its immediate ancestor was the cognitive revolution of the 1970s, an explosion of psychological research into the way people think. After decades dominated by the study of observable behavior, scientists wanted a closer look at the more mysterious operation of the human brain. And the development of computers--which enabled scientists to display information very quickly and to measure minute discrepancies in reaction time--permitted a peek into the unconscious.
At the same time, the study of cognition was also illuminating the nature of stereotypes themselves. Research done after World War II--mostly by European emigres struggling to understand how the Holocaust had happened--concluded that stereotypes were used only by a particular type of person: rigid, repressed, authoritarian. Borrowing from the psychoanalytic perspective then in vogue, these theorists suggested that biased behavior emerged out of internal conflicts caused by inadequate parenting.
The cognitive approach refused to let the rest of us off the hook. It made the simple but profound point that we all use categories--of people, places, things--to make sense of the world around us. "Our ability to categorize and evaluate is an important part of human intelligence," says Banaji. "Without it, we couldn't survive." But stereotypes are too much of a good thing. In the course of stereotyping, a useful category--say, women--becomes freighted with additional associations, usually negative. "Stereotypes are categories that have gone too far," says John Bargh, Ph.D., of New York University. "When we use stereotypes, we take in the gender, the age, the color of the skin of the person before us, and our minds respond with messages that say hostile, stupid, slow, weak. Those qualities aren't out there in the environment. They don't reflect reality."
Bargh thinks that stereotypes may emerge from what social psychologists call in-group/out-group dynamics. Humans, like other species, need to feel that they are part of a group, and as villages, clans, and other traditional groupings have broken down, our identities have attached themselves to more ambiguous classifications, such as race and class. We want to feel good about the group we belong to--and one way of doing so is to denigrate all those who who aren't in it. And while we tend to see members of our own group as individuals, we view those in out-groups as an undifferentiated--stereotyped--mass. The categories we use have changed, but it seems that stereotyping itself is bred in the bone.
Though a small minority of scientists argues that stereotypes are usually accurate and can be relied upon without reservations, most disagree--and vehemently. "Even if there is a kernel of truth in the stereotype, you're still applying a generalization about a group to an individual, which is always incorrect," says Bargh. Accuracy aside, some believe that the use of stereotypes is simply unjust. "In a democratic society, people should be judged as individuals and not as members of a group," Banaji argues. "Stereotyping flies in the face of that ideal."
PREDISPOSED TO PREJUDICE
The problem, as Banaji's own research shows, is that people can't seem to help it. A recent experiment provides a good illustration. Banaji and her colleague, Anthony Greenwald, Ph.D., showed people a list of names--some famous, some not. The next day, the subjects returned to the lab and were shown a second list, which mixed names from the first list with new ones. Asked to identify which were famous, they picked out the Margaret Meads and the Miles Davises--but they also chose some of the names on the first list, which retained a lingering familiarity that they mistook for fame. (Psychologists call this the "famous overnight-effect.") By a margin of two-to-one, these suddenly "famous" people were male.
Participants weren't aware that they were preferring male names to female names, Banaji stresses. They were simply drawing on an unconscious stereotype of men as more important and influential than women. Something similar happened when she showed subjects a list of people who might be criminals: without knowing they were doing so, participants picked out an overwhelming number of African-American names. Banaji calls this kind of stereotyping implicit, because people know they are making a judgment--but just aren't aware of the basis upon which they are making it.
Even further below awareness is something that psychologists call automatic processing, in which stereotypes are triggered by the slightest interaction or encounter. An experiment conducted by Bargh required a group of white participants to perform a tedious computer task. While performing the task, some of the participants were subliminally exposed to pictures of African-Americans with neutral expressions. When the subjects were then asked to do the task over again, the ones who had been exposed to the faces reacted with more hostility to the request--because, Bargh believes, they were responding in kind to the hostility which is part of the African-American stereotype. Bargh calls this the "immediate hostile reaction," which he believes can have a realeffect on race relations. When African-Americans accurately perceive the hostile expressions that their white counterparts are unaware of, they may respond with hostility of their own--thereby perpetuating the stereotype.
Of course, we aren't completely under the sway of our unconscious. Scientists think that the automatic activation of a stereotype is immediately followed by a conscious check on unacceptable thoughts--at least in people who think that they are not prejudiced. This internal censor successfully restrains overtly biased responses. But there's still the danger of leakage, which often shows up in non-verbal behavior: our expressions, our stance, how far away we stand, how much eye contact we make.
The gap between what we say and what we do can lead African-Americans and whites to come away with very different impressions of the same encounter, says Jack Dovidio. "If I'm a white person talking to an African-American, I'm probably monitoring my conscious beliefs very carefully and making sure everything I say agrees with all the positive things I want to express," he says. "And I usually believe I'm pretty successful because I hear the right words coming out of my mouth." The listener who is paying attention to non-verbal behavior, however, may be getting quite the opposite message. An African-American student of Dovidio's recently told him that when she was growing up, her mother had taught her to observe how white people moved to gauge their true feelings toward blacks. "Her mother was a very astute amateur psychologist--and about 20 years ahead of me." he remarks.
WHERE DOES BIAS BEGIN?
So where exactly do these stealth stereotypes come from? Though automatic-stereotype researchers often refer to the unconscious, they don't mean the Freudian notion of a seething mass of thoughts and desires, only some of which are deemed presentable enough to be admitted to the conscious mind. In fact, the cognitive model holds that information flows in exactly the opposite direction: connections made often enough in the conscious mind eventually become unconscious. Says Bargh: "If conscious choice and decision making are not needed, they go away. Ideas recede from consciousness into the unconscious over time."
Much of what enters our consciousness, of course, comes from the culture around us. And like the culture, it seems that our minds are split on the subjects of race, gender, class, sexual orientation. "We not only mirror the ambivalence we see in society, but also mirror it in precisely the same way," says Dovidio. Our society talks out loud about justice, equality, and egalitarianism, and most Americans accept these values as their own. At the same time, such equality exists only as an ideal, and that fact is not lost on our unconscious. Images of women as sexobjects, footage of African-American criminals on the six o'clock news,--"this is knowledge we cannot escape," explains Banaji. "We didn't choose to know it, but it still affects our behavior."
We learn the subtext of our culture's messages early. By five years of age, says Margo Monteith, Ph.D., many children have definite and entrenched stereotypes about blacks, women, and other social groups. Adds Monteith, professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky: "Children don't have a choice about accepting or rejecting these conceptions, since they're acquired well before they have the cognitive abilities or experiences to form their own beliefs." And no matter how progressive the parents, they must compete with all the forces that would promote and perpetuate these stereotypes: peer pressure, mass media, the actual balance of power in society. In fact, prejudice may be as much a result as a cause of this imbalance. We create stereotypes--African-Americans are lazy, women are emotional--to explain why things are the way they are. As Dovidio notes, "Stereotypes don't have to be true to serve a purpose."
WHY CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG?
The idea of unconscious bias does clear up some nettlesome contradictions. "It accounts for a lot of people's ambivalence toward others who are different, a lot of their inconsistencies in behavior," says Dovidio. "It helps explain how good people can do bad things." But it also prompts some uncomfortable realizations. Because our conscious and unconscious beliefs may be very different--and because behavior often follows the lead of the latter--"good intentions aren't enough," as John Bargh puts it. In fact, he believes that they count for very little. "I don't think free will exists," he says, bluntly--because what feels like the exercise of free will may be only the application of unconscious assumptions.
Not only may we be unable to control our biased responses, we may not even be aware that we have them. "We have to rely on our memories and our awareness of what we're doing to have a connection to reality," says Bargh. "But when it comes to automatic processing, those cues can be deceptive." Likewise, we can't always be sure how biased others are. "We all have this belief that the important thing about prejudice is the external expression of it," says Banaji. "That's going to be hard to give up."
One thing is certain: We can't claim that we've eradicated prejudice just because its outright expression has waned. What's more, the strategies that were so effective in reducing that sort of bias won't work on unconscious beliefs. "What this research is saying is that we are going to have to change dramatically the way we think we can influence people's behaviors," says Banaji. "It would be naive to think that exhortation is enough." Exhortation, education, political protest--all of these hammer away at our conscious beliefs while leaving the bedrock below untouched. Banaji notes, however, that one traditional remedy for discrimination--affirmative action--may still be effective since it bypasses our unconsciously compromised judgment.
Mid-Term Review
Start looking over chapter 10 (Racial and Ethnic Inequality)
as well as Chapter 13 (Family) and lastly chapter 14 (Religion)
Don't forget the chapter on Culture as well.
More to come!!
as well as Chapter 13 (Family) and lastly chapter 14 (Religion)
Don't forget the chapter on Culture as well.
More to come!!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Written Assignment #5
1. Distinguish between the functionalist and conflict views of social institutions.
130 - 133
2. What are the five functional prerequisites that a society must satisfy if it is to survive? 130 - 131
3. How did Stanley Milgram explain the high rates of compliance found in his obedience experiment? 177-178
4. Describe Edwin Sutherlands approach to deviance, which draws upon interactionalist perspective. 184-185
5. How do conflict theorists view deviance? 188-190
Assignment is due Thursday March, 12!
130 - 133
2. What are the five functional prerequisites that a society must satisfy if it is to survive? 130 - 131
3. How did Stanley Milgram explain the high rates of compliance found in his obedience experiment? 177-178
4. Describe Edwin Sutherlands approach to deviance, which draws upon interactionalist perspective. 184-185
5. How do conflict theorists view deviance? 188-190
Assignment is due Thursday March, 12!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Written Assignment # 3
This article examines the issues surrounding the Terri Schiavo case and the "right to die."
1. When is a person still considered a person, by society?
2. How would you describe the position of Americans concerning the case of Terri Schiavo?
3. Which questions does society have to consider when deciding whether or not a person has "the right to die"http://4
Assignment is due Wed Feb 25
1. When is a person still considered a person, by society?
2. How would you describe the position of Americans concerning the case of Terri Schiavo?
3. Which questions does society have to consider when deciding whether or not a person has "the right to die"http://4
Assignment is due Wed Feb 25
Reading Assignment # 3
End of the Affair
By John Leo
Posted 4/3/05
Some final notes on the Terri Schiavo case. The behavior of conservatives: Uneven and sometimes awful, with lots of vituperation and extreme charges. (Jeb Bush does not remind me of Pontius Pilate; I don't think it's fair to circulate rumors that Michael Schiavo was a wife-beater.) Worse were the revolutionary suggestions that the courts be ignored or defied, perhaps by sending in the National Guard to reconnect the tube. This is "by any means necessary" rhetoric of the radical left, this time let loose by angry conservatives. Where does this rhetoric lead?
The behavior of liberals: Mystifying. While conservative opinion was severely splintered, liberal opinion seemed monolithic: Let her die. Liberals usually rally to the side of vulnerable people, but not in this case. Democrats talked abstractly about procedures and rules, a reversal of familiar roles. I do not understand why liberal friends defined the issue almost solely in terms of government intruding into family matters. Liberals are famously willing to enter family affairs to defend individual rights, opposing parental-consent laws, for example. Why not here? Nonintervention is morally suspect when there is strong reason to wonder whether the decision-maker in the family has the helpless person's best interests at heart.
A few liberals broke ranks--10 members of the black caucus, for instance, plus Sen. Tom Harkin and Ralph Nader, who called the case "court-imposed homicide." But such voices were rare. My suspicion is that liberal opinion was guided by smoldering resentment toward President Bush and the rising contempt for religion in general and conservative Christians in particular. We seem headed for much more conflict between religious and secular Americans.
The behavior of the news media: Terrible. "Pro-life" columnist Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice called it "the worst case of liberal media bias I've seen yet." Many stories and headlines were politically loaded. Small example of large disdain: On air, a CBS correspondent called the Florida rallies a "religious roadshow," a term unlikely to have been applied to Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights demonstrations or any other rallies meeting CBS's approval. More important, it was hard to find news that Michael Schiavo had provided no therapy or rehabilitation for his wife since 1994 and even blocked the use of antibiotics when Terri developed a urinary infection. And the big national newspapers claimed as a fact that Michael Schiavo's long-delayed recollection of Terri's wish to die, supported only by hearsay from Michael's brother and a sister-in-law, met the standard for "clear and convincing evidence" of consent. It did nothing of the sort, particularly with two of Terri's friends testifying the opposite. The media covered the intervention by Congress as narrowly political and unwarranted. They largely fudged the debates over whether Terri Schiavo was indeed in a persistent vegetative state and whether tube-feeding meant that Schiavo was on life support. In the Nancy Cruzan case, the Supreme Court said that tube-feeding is life support, but some ethicists and disability leaders strongly dispute that position.
Unsettled questions. Public opinion: Polls showed very strong opposition to the Republican intervention, but the likelihood is that those polled weren't primarily concerned with Terri Schiavo or Republican overreaching, if that's what it was. They were thinking about themselves and how to avoid being in Terri Schiavo's predicament. Many, too, have pulled the plug on family members and don't want these wrenching decisions second-guessed by the courts or the public.
If this is correct, it means the country has yet to make up its mind on the issue of personhood and whether it is moral and just to remove tube-supplied food and water from people with grave cognitive disabilities. The following candid exchange occurred on Court TV last month in a conversation between author Wesley Smith and bioethicist Bill Allen. Smith: "Bill, do you think Terri is a person?" Allen: "No, I do not. I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood." Fetuses, babies, and Alzheimer's patients are only minimally aware and might not fit this definition of personhood, and so would have no claim on our protections. Smith points out that other bioethicists narrow protection further, requiring rationality, the capacity to experience desire, or the ability to value one's own existence. Tighter definitions of personhood expand the number of humans who can be killed without blame or harvested for their organs while still alive. On Court TV, Allen argued that the family could have removed Terri's organs while she was alive, "just as we allow people to say what they want done with their assets." This issue has been hiding behind the Terri Schiavo case for years. Soon it will be out in the open.
Written Assignment # 2
Read Assignment #2 and answer these questions
1. Is there an effort to abolish the significance of Christmas as a religious holiday in America?
2. Is the government or the people becoming more intolerant of Christmas?
3. Is recognition of the Christmas season a violation of the seperation of church and state?
4. How does this reflect changin attitudes toward religion in American society?
This is due Tue Feb 24
1. Is there an effort to abolish the significance of Christmas as a religious holiday in America?
2. Is the government or the people becoming more intolerant of Christmas?
3. Is recognition of the Christmas season a violation of the seperation of church and state?
4. How does this reflect changin attitudes toward religion in American society?
This is due Tue Feb 24
Reading Assignment #2
December 19, 2004 by John Leo
THE ‘C-WORD’ IS MAKING A COMEBACK
• File: Religion, Political Correctness, Free Speech, Language
This column's far-flung staff has just visited two of the big anti-Christmas stores here in New York. First stop was Macy's, where the formerly famous feast day has pretty much been obliterated. No reference to Christmas on the main floor. But high up in the store's nosebleed section (ninth floor, furniture), shoppers may notice "Holiday Lane," a collection of generically decorated Christmas trees and a few gift items.
The forbidden C-word is hard to find, though sharp-eyed column staffers noticed it twice, in little corners labeled "A Country Christmas" and "A Traditional Christmas." Sadly, some minor Torquemada of the Macy's Christmas disposal unit will probably lose his job for failing to rip down these backward signs. Not to worry, though. There is nothing religious in this area. No carols. No music at all. Just those two small indications of what holiday might be occurring along Holiday Lane.
Hanukkah is suffering the same fate as Christmas. Two years ago, the store had a huge Hanukkah banner and display. Now a few menorahs are for sale in a tiny unmarked area, well outside "Holiday Lane."
The purge of Christmas is also in full bloom over at Bloomingdale's, which, like Macy's is owned by Federated Department Stores. A minuscule Christmas section is tucked away on the fifth floor. "Any Christmas music?" I asked a clerk, as a sad Billie Holiday song filled the air (just the thing for holiday lanes). "Oh, it goes in cycles," the clerk said. "Just wait." Sure enough, a few minutes later, right after "Let It Snow," "The Christmas Song" came on, or as it is generally known, "Religion-Free Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Secular Fire."
I heard no carols, though, and saw no "Merry Christmas" banners. Just a few trinkets and two table-top, fake evergreen trees decorated with tiny people holding Bloomingdale's shopping bags.
Federated apparently ignores Christmas because it doesn't want to offend anyone, though at least 80 percent of Americans say they are Christian, and 95 percent observe Christmas in some way. Presumably if American were 95 percent Druid, the canny business people at Federated would obliterate major Druid holidays and tick off as many Druid shoppers as possible. Then they would refer to this process as "inclusion."
The folks at Federated are victims of the campaign to make people feel uncomfortable about Christmas, not just the religious feast but all the secular trappings, and even mention of the word "Christmas" in conversation. Some public schools have been banning "Silent Night" and other carols from school concerts, though no court has ever ruled that these songs cannot be sung. In West Bend, Wis., the joint school district announced that students could not distribute religious Christmas cards. No law or court has ever ruled this way. The school district backed down when Liberty Counsel, a religious liberties group, threatened to sue.
In Plano, Texas, a school district is trying to prohibit red-and-green sweaters at "winter break" parties. A judge has issued a restraining order. The anti-Christmas lobby keeps implying that schools can't teach about Christmas and that creches can't be placed on public property. Not so, as long as the teaching purpose is educational, and the creche is part of a broad seasonal display.
Santa Claus, the famously secular figure, is in hot water because he was originally based on St. Nicholas. Horrors. Then let's ban the word "Goodbye," which evolved from "God be with you." At some schools, PC people argue that even "Jingle Bells" is a church-state violation.
Harold Johnson, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation said, "Administrators who try to make their schools Christmas-free zones are either constitutional illiterates or cowards in the face of PC bullies, or pushing personal agendas that have no grounding in the law." Sounds right to me.
Jill Stewart, a California-based columnist, says her state's "intolerance toward Christmas is just another reason why Californians and residents of other blue states are viewed by the heartland crowd as hostile, godless types who can't stand regular folks." Stewart is not religious, but to protest the anti-Christmas campaign, she will skip saying "Happy Holidays" at Christmas parties this year and just wish everybody "Merry Christmas."
Defiance of the PC police may be catching on. In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the state "holiday tree" would be called a Christmas tree while he is in office.
In Winnipeg, Canada, last year, columnist Tom Brodbeck wrote that he was surprised and pleased that the musical event at his daughter's school is a Christmas concert, not a "winter celebration" or an "international celebration of the holidays." It wasn't a "sunny solstice" or "decorous December" concert either, just a euphemism-free Christmas event. He thinks the word "Christmas" is slowly creeping back into the public vocabulary. "It's beginning to feel a lot like Christmas again," he said. Let's wish.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/22/time-for-a-separation-of-church-and-sports/?icid=mainmaindl1link1http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/22/time-for-a-separation-of-church-and-sports/
THE ‘C-WORD’ IS MAKING A COMEBACK
• File: Religion, Political Correctness, Free Speech, Language
This column's far-flung staff has just visited two of the big anti-Christmas stores here in New York. First stop was Macy's, where the formerly famous feast day has pretty much been obliterated. No reference to Christmas on the main floor. But high up in the store's nosebleed section (ninth floor, furniture), shoppers may notice "Holiday Lane," a collection of generically decorated Christmas trees and a few gift items.
The forbidden C-word is hard to find, though sharp-eyed column staffers noticed it twice, in little corners labeled "A Country Christmas" and "A Traditional Christmas." Sadly, some minor Torquemada of the Macy's Christmas disposal unit will probably lose his job for failing to rip down these backward signs. Not to worry, though. There is nothing religious in this area. No carols. No music at all. Just those two small indications of what holiday might be occurring along Holiday Lane.
Hanukkah is suffering the same fate as Christmas. Two years ago, the store had a huge Hanukkah banner and display. Now a few menorahs are for sale in a tiny unmarked area, well outside "Holiday Lane."
The purge of Christmas is also in full bloom over at Bloomingdale's, which, like Macy's is owned by Federated Department Stores. A minuscule Christmas section is tucked away on the fifth floor. "Any Christmas music?" I asked a clerk, as a sad Billie Holiday song filled the air (just the thing for holiday lanes). "Oh, it goes in cycles," the clerk said. "Just wait." Sure enough, a few minutes later, right after "Let It Snow," "The Christmas Song" came on, or as it is generally known, "Religion-Free Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Secular Fire."
I heard no carols, though, and saw no "Merry Christmas" banners. Just a few trinkets and two table-top, fake evergreen trees decorated with tiny people holding Bloomingdale's shopping bags.
Federated apparently ignores Christmas because it doesn't want to offend anyone, though at least 80 percent of Americans say they are Christian, and 95 percent observe Christmas in some way. Presumably if American were 95 percent Druid, the canny business people at Federated would obliterate major Druid holidays and tick off as many Druid shoppers as possible. Then they would refer to this process as "inclusion."
The folks at Federated are victims of the campaign to make people feel uncomfortable about Christmas, not just the religious feast but all the secular trappings, and even mention of the word "Christmas" in conversation. Some public schools have been banning "Silent Night" and other carols from school concerts, though no court has ever ruled that these songs cannot be sung. In West Bend, Wis., the joint school district announced that students could not distribute religious Christmas cards. No law or court has ever ruled this way. The school district backed down when Liberty Counsel, a religious liberties group, threatened to sue.
In Plano, Texas, a school district is trying to prohibit red-and-green sweaters at "winter break" parties. A judge has issued a restraining order. The anti-Christmas lobby keeps implying that schools can't teach about Christmas and that creches can't be placed on public property. Not so, as long as the teaching purpose is educational, and the creche is part of a broad seasonal display.
Santa Claus, the famously secular figure, is in hot water because he was originally based on St. Nicholas. Horrors. Then let's ban the word "Goodbye," which evolved from "God be with you." At some schools, PC people argue that even "Jingle Bells" is a church-state violation.
Harold Johnson, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation said, "Administrators who try to make their schools Christmas-free zones are either constitutional illiterates or cowards in the face of PC bullies, or pushing personal agendas that have no grounding in the law." Sounds right to me.
Jill Stewart, a California-based columnist, says her state's "intolerance toward Christmas is just another reason why Californians and residents of other blue states are viewed by the heartland crowd as hostile, godless types who can't stand regular folks." Stewart is not religious, but to protest the anti-Christmas campaign, she will skip saying "Happy Holidays" at Christmas parties this year and just wish everybody "Merry Christmas."
Defiance of the PC police may be catching on. In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the state "holiday tree" would be called a Christmas tree while he is in office.
In Winnipeg, Canada, last year, columnist Tom Brodbeck wrote that he was surprised and pleased that the musical event at his daughter's school is a Christmas concert, not a "winter celebration" or an "international celebration of the holidays." It wasn't a "sunny solstice" or "decorous December" concert either, just a euphemism-free Christmas event. He thinks the word "Christmas" is slowly creeping back into the public vocabulary. "It's beginning to feel a lot like Christmas again," he said. Let's wish.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/22/time-for-a-separation-of-church-and-sports/?icid=mainmaindl1link1http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/22/time-for-a-separation-of-church-and-sports/
Written Assignment # 1
After reading assignment #1 answer these questions, I will collect the answers in class.
1. Should parents have the right to opt out of having their children exposed to ideas in school that they consider immoral?
2. Is the stance taken by some parents interfering with a school's responsibility to promote tolerance and respect?
Made sure you label this Assignment #1
This is due Thursday Feb 12
1. Should parents have the right to opt out of having their children exposed to ideas in school that they consider immoral?
2. Is the stance taken by some parents interfering with a school's responsibility to promote tolerance and respect?
Made sure you label this Assignment #1
This is due Thursday Feb 12
Monday, February 9, 2009
Reading Assignment #1
October 10, 2005 by John Leo
The Parent Trap•
Diversity Book Bag -http://estabrook.lexingtonma.org/Diversity/diversitybookbags.html
David and Tonia Parker of Lexington, Mass., saw a red flag when their son came home from kindergarten last January with a "diversity book bag" that included Who ' s in a Family, a book promoting acceptance of gay marriage. The Parkers thought it was their right, as parents, to decide when and how to introduce their son to the issue of homosexuality. The Parkers believed the public school, Estabrook, is right to be teaching tolerance of gays but wrong in raising the subject in kindergarten and then indoctrinating 5-year-olds on gay marriage. Tonia Parker says gay parents are allowed to come into class and read their material to a captive audience of the very young.
The Parkers did not attack the "diversity book bag" program. They requested notification of any future school discussions of homosexuality so they could have their son opt out. They pointed to a state law defending the opt-out right of parents. The school argued that the law pertained to sex education, not discussion of family forms. In a series of E-mails, the school agreed to a meeting, where the Parkers thought an accommodation would be offered. When the school took a hard-nosed stance instead, David Parker refused to leave school property. He was arrested, led off to jail in handcuffs, then allowed out on bail. His trial for trespassing has been delayed for months. A restraining order, still in effect, bans him from the school and its grounds. He cannot attend meetings of the school committee or pick up his son after class. He cannot even vote, since the school is his voting site. The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts said the school is on sound legal ground (no surprise there), arguing that "public education would grind to a halt if parents had the right to demand classes tailored to each child based on the parent's moral views."
Occasionally, the school and its anti-bias committee, with strong gay membership, have argued that the book bag program merely acknowledged the plain fact of same-sex marriages. But the committee's website was more candid, stating that the book bags are intended "to build an atmosphere of tolerance and respect" for "family structure diversity." The site says children "have the option to bring home a diversity book bag," and the school says it gave ample notice to parents. But Tonia Parker says she carefully files every notice and never received one on the book bag. The school said the book bag was on display at back-to-school night. Tonia Parker says she attended that event but was never told about the bag. Brian Camenker, head of the pro-family group Article 8 Alliance, which opposes gay marriage, says the diversity bag was there but in an inconspicuous place with no indication of what was in it. Another couple, the Parkers say, knew about the book bag and told the school not to send it, but their child was sent home with it anyway. That family has since left Lexington.
" Left-wing town. " The strongly liberal Boston Globe offered some questionable reporting on the controversy. In one report last May, it blandly referred to Who ' s in a Family as "a book that depicts a same-sex couple." Another report quoted a smug educational bureaucrat comparing the Parkers' argument to that of a parent who wanted James and the Giant Peach removed from a school. But the dispute isn't about censorship, oversensitive parents, or even gay marriage. The Parkers have made no antigay statements and have kept their argument tightly focused on parental rights to allow their children to opt out on issues of sexuality and lessons that implicitly approve gay marriage. Parker refuses to plea-bargain on trespassing until the school lifts its restraining order. The Parkers have assembled a strong legal team to handle the criminal case and a civil suit they plan to file against the school system.
Camenker, who wrote the state opt-out law 10 years ago, says there is no doubt that Paul Ash, Lexington superintendent of schools, has misconstrued it. Even if the law didn't exist, he says, it's mind-boggling that the school would trample parental rights by denying a simple opt-out. Lexington is "an incredibly left-wing town" strongly opposed to the Parkers, he says, but in the rest of the state, maybe 80 to 90 percent of the people who know about the case support the Parkers.
One problem is that gay activists tend to blur the line between tolerance, which the vast majority of Americans favor, and approval of homosexuality, which meets significantly greater resistance. This happens often as lessons of approval are smuggled into anti-bias programs. Another problem is an older one: Public school systems often view parents not as allies but as annoying obstacles to be overcome. In this case, as the Parkers' argument goes national, the obstacles stand a darned good chance of winning.
The Parent Trap•
Diversity Book Bag -http://estabrook.lexingtonma.org/Diversity/diversitybookbags.html
David and Tonia Parker of Lexington, Mass., saw a red flag when their son came home from kindergarten last January with a "diversity book bag" that included Who ' s in a Family, a book promoting acceptance of gay marriage. The Parkers thought it was their right, as parents, to decide when and how to introduce their son to the issue of homosexuality. The Parkers believed the public school, Estabrook, is right to be teaching tolerance of gays but wrong in raising the subject in kindergarten and then indoctrinating 5-year-olds on gay marriage. Tonia Parker says gay parents are allowed to come into class and read their material to a captive audience of the very young.
The Parkers did not attack the "diversity book bag" program. They requested notification of any future school discussions of homosexuality so they could have their son opt out. They pointed to a state law defending the opt-out right of parents. The school argued that the law pertained to sex education, not discussion of family forms. In a series of E-mails, the school agreed to a meeting, where the Parkers thought an accommodation would be offered. When the school took a hard-nosed stance instead, David Parker refused to leave school property. He was arrested, led off to jail in handcuffs, then allowed out on bail. His trial for trespassing has been delayed for months. A restraining order, still in effect, bans him from the school and its grounds. He cannot attend meetings of the school committee or pick up his son after class. He cannot even vote, since the school is his voting site. The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts said the school is on sound legal ground (no surprise there), arguing that "public education would grind to a halt if parents had the right to demand classes tailored to each child based on the parent's moral views."
Occasionally, the school and its anti-bias committee, with strong gay membership, have argued that the book bag program merely acknowledged the plain fact of same-sex marriages. But the committee's website was more candid, stating that the book bags are intended "to build an atmosphere of tolerance and respect" for "family structure diversity." The site says children "have the option to bring home a diversity book bag," and the school says it gave ample notice to parents. But Tonia Parker says she carefully files every notice and never received one on the book bag. The school said the book bag was on display at back-to-school night. Tonia Parker says she attended that event but was never told about the bag. Brian Camenker, head of the pro-family group Article 8 Alliance, which opposes gay marriage, says the diversity bag was there but in an inconspicuous place with no indication of what was in it. Another couple, the Parkers say, knew about the book bag and told the school not to send it, but their child was sent home with it anyway. That family has since left Lexington.
" Left-wing town. " The strongly liberal Boston Globe offered some questionable reporting on the controversy. In one report last May, it blandly referred to Who ' s in a Family as "a book that depicts a same-sex couple." Another report quoted a smug educational bureaucrat comparing the Parkers' argument to that of a parent who wanted James and the Giant Peach removed from a school. But the dispute isn't about censorship, oversensitive parents, or even gay marriage. The Parkers have made no antigay statements and have kept their argument tightly focused on parental rights to allow their children to opt out on issues of sexuality and lessons that implicitly approve gay marriage. Parker refuses to plea-bargain on trespassing until the school lifts its restraining order. The Parkers have assembled a strong legal team to handle the criminal case and a civil suit they plan to file against the school system.
Camenker, who wrote the state opt-out law 10 years ago, says there is no doubt that Paul Ash, Lexington superintendent of schools, has misconstrued it. Even if the law didn't exist, he says, it's mind-boggling that the school would trample parental rights by denying a simple opt-out. Lexington is "an incredibly left-wing town" strongly opposed to the Parkers, he says, but in the rest of the state, maybe 80 to 90 percent of the people who know about the case support the Parkers.
One problem is that gay activists tend to blur the line between tolerance, which the vast majority of Americans favor, and approval of homosexuality, which meets significantly greater resistance. This happens often as lessons of approval are smuggled into anti-bias programs. Another problem is an older one: Public school systems often view parents not as allies but as annoying obstacles to be overcome. In this case, as the Parkers' argument goes national, the obstacles stand a darned good chance of winning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)