I am a firm believer in the authority and efficiency of Wikipedia. Certainly, one can find inaccuracies therein, but the majority of articles, especially about current or popular topics are well-researched and, well, let’s not say well-written. Nonetheless, there are so many writers with different viewpoints that the result often conveys a good idea of the consensus on a given topic. There are only sometimes edit wars, and they usually result from differences in deep-seeded ideological beliefs.
Such was only partially the case when I discovered the enormous, mind-boggling war over the use of the Arabic term “Gaza massacre,” attested to in at least 10 Arabic media sources (far more than are usually necessary), to describe the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At a recent check, the phrase was allowed to remain, but fully half the “talk page” (a place for discussion of the progress of the article) was devoted to arguments about the appropriateness of this phrase.
My point is, if the phrase is being used by Arabic sources, then let it be used in reference to these sources in the English Wikipedia. The phrase is undoubtedly expressive of a single point of view, but if Al-Jazeera uses it to describe the entire conflict, it belongs in the article. My real point is, it is exactly this type of debate which is at the heart of the intractable Middle Eastern conflict. When ridiculous matters of semantics are allowed to overrun political or other discussion, the conflict can quickly escalate. The position in the Middle East has become such a mire of bureaucracy, religious tenets held without rationality, and hatred for hatred’s sake that I despair of ever finding a solution. The violent (by Wikipedian standards) controversy over the simple inclusion of one side’s phrase on a neutral website is a good metaphor for this nightmare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Not Good Enough, Obama
If you have been paying attention to Obama Tube, (I’m sorry, television), then the “Most Liberal Senator”-cum-centrist-President-Elect’s choice of conservative demigod Rick Warren to bloviate at the inauguration cannot have escaped notice. This choice, apparently made to show that Obama wishes to reach out to cultural conservatives is troubling in light of the despicable discrimination of Warren’s church against openly gay and lesbian people. In light of all the help Obama lent the fight to shoot down Proposition 8 in California, though, I guess it’s only fair that he include other viewpoints at his inauguration. Oh, except of course the President-Elect made no such effort. I’m beginning to think that I’m living in an alternate universe where gay rights have vanished from the agenda of the Democratic Party. The news yesterday that Obama has decided, ostensibly in acquiescence to the demands of outraged gay groups, to include the openly gay Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson in an “inaugural event” days before the actual article does little to calm me. Exactly how many people will be watching this event around the country? In the interest of conforming to President-Elect Obama’s own principles, principles of tolerance and fairness, Rick Warren should not be allowed as the only religious speaker of his inauguration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13prayer.html?em
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13prayer.html?em
Where the Student-Teacher Ratio is 300-1
According to a story in the New York Times, MIT, Harvard, and a number of other prestigious schools in the United States are doing away with the introductory math and science lecture classes in which more than 250 freshmen reside. As a student at Princeton, I must confess how sorry I am that Old Nassau has no such designs on our mega-classes. Some find it refreshing to be part of a class where your name doesn’t matter. Being up in the risers, surrounded by your whole college class, I guess it makes you feel more like you’re at a football game than a lecture. To me, it’s more like a Greek tragedy, only I’m part of some mute chorus the people up on the stage will never listen to. I do have some experience: this semester, I took ECO 100: Introduction to Microeconomics (population: 310). My professor, equipped with an industrial grade laser pointer, certainly seemed to enjoy the spotlight; at least, his profuse garrulousness meant he rarely finished his own lectures. His audience seemed to be getting smaller and smaller as the performance’s “run” came to an end, though. I guess when no one knows who you are they don’t miss you much. This is the real problem with large, lecture-based classes: a small subset of the students, probably people already informed about the subject, follow the professor through all his poorly-proofread slides. The rest of us teach ourselves as best we can come exam-time. Speaking of which, I have to go study…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?em
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?em
Towards a More Diverse Senate
Yesterday, leaders of the US Senate agreed to seat Roland Burris, the appointee of the beleaguered governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich. This is a victory for Americans in all states, despite the inevitable baggage Burris will carry with him into Washington. For one thing, Burris himself is not accused of any wrongdoing, and was not one of the five on the list Gov. Blagojevich believed might be willing to make a pay-for-play deal with him. Although it is perhaps unfortunate that the Eminence Greasy chose anyone at all, Burris is a well-known state politician with a clean (by American standards, at least!) record.
There is another reason why Burris’ appointment should be recognized, instead of making another choice: he will inject a good dose of diversity into the Old Boys Club of the Senate. Indeed, there are no other members of the Senate who are people of color. Burris also has a long history with the civil rights movement. Although Blagojevich may have chosen Burris specifically to prevent the all-white Senate from objecting too strenuously to his choice, it remains a good thing for this country to have as many different cultural backgrounds and viewpoints in our senior legislative body as possible.
See the New York Times story about the Senate’s decision:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13burris.html?ref=washington
There is another reason why Burris’ appointment should be recognized, instead of making another choice: he will inject a good dose of diversity into the Old Boys Club of the Senate. Indeed, there are no other members of the Senate who are people of color. Burris also has a long history with the civil rights movement. Although Blagojevich may have chosen Burris specifically to prevent the all-white Senate from objecting too strenuously to his choice, it remains a good thing for this country to have as many different cultural backgrounds and viewpoints in our senior legislative body as possible.
See the New York Times story about the Senate’s decision:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13burris.html?ref=washington
Monday, January 12, 2009
Is Racism as Extinct As We Think?
I think most of us, if not all, would classify ourselves as not racist. Personally, I know few people who openly hold prejudice against people of other races. This is why I was shocked at reading about a recent study performed on York University students showing that two-thirds of participants displayed “indifference at best” when they witnessed a racist act.
The participants were set up to witness an interaction between two actors, one white and one black, pretending to be more participants. The black person would get up and “accidentally” bump the white person’s leg in doing so. The white actor would then do one of three things: do nothing, say, “I hate when black people do that,” or use the N-word.
The participant was then told to pick which of the two actors he or she would like to be partners with in a study.
120 non-black college students participated in the experiment. Of these, half read about the situation and the other half actually experienced it. Those who read about it were asked to predict their reaction to either offensive comment. They insisted they would be very upset and would choose the black actor as their partner. However, in the actual situation, nearly two-thirds chose the white actor as their partner.
In his review of the experiment, psychologist Eliot R. Smith wrote: "The failure of people to confront or do anything about racist comments is pretty widespread in the real world. People may feel uncomfortable if someone makes a remark like this, but it's rare they will actually confront them."
I would like to think that racism will decrease even more with Obama as our president, but that may not be the case. Some argue that Obama will be a symbol of how America has overcome racism, and that it will help to have the positive image of a black man leading the country. However, it may just take time for people’s mindsets to change. Only when it is natural that racist comments and unequal treatment for people of different races are out of place can racism be truly eradicated. No amount of affirmative action and other legislation can fully accomplish this.
On the season premiere of What Would You Do?, a new show on ABC, they conduct another revealing experiment. Through hidden cameras, we witness several customers come into a store in which the cashier is an actor who is racist and refuses to serve two Mexican migrant workers (also actors). Of the 88 people who came into the store during the experiment’s duration, 49 didn’t get involved in the conflict between the cashier and the migrant workers, even when the cashier made statements like “Go back to your own country,” “If you have to come here, at least learn English first,” and “They are stealing our jobs.” Nine participants even sided with the cashier. And thankfully, the other 30 spoke out in defense of the day laborers.
Again, hopefully the prevalence behavior like this will continue to decrease until racism is extinct. However, just last April a Yahoo poll showed that “about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president.” Now, with Obama soon to be inaugurated, it will be interesting to see if the opinions of that 8 percent can be changed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28563183/
http://abc.go.com/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9761.html
The participants were set up to witness an interaction between two actors, one white and one black, pretending to be more participants. The black person would get up and “accidentally” bump the white person’s leg in doing so. The white actor would then do one of three things: do nothing, say, “I hate when black people do that,” or use the N-word.
The participant was then told to pick which of the two actors he or she would like to be partners with in a study.
120 non-black college students participated in the experiment. Of these, half read about the situation and the other half actually experienced it. Those who read about it were asked to predict their reaction to either offensive comment. They insisted they would be very upset and would choose the black actor as their partner. However, in the actual situation, nearly two-thirds chose the white actor as their partner.
In his review of the experiment, psychologist Eliot R. Smith wrote: "The failure of people to confront or do anything about racist comments is pretty widespread in the real world. People may feel uncomfortable if someone makes a remark like this, but it's rare they will actually confront them."
I would like to think that racism will decrease even more with Obama as our president, but that may not be the case. Some argue that Obama will be a symbol of how America has overcome racism, and that it will help to have the positive image of a black man leading the country. However, it may just take time for people’s mindsets to change. Only when it is natural that racist comments and unequal treatment for people of different races are out of place can racism be truly eradicated. No amount of affirmative action and other legislation can fully accomplish this.
On the season premiere of What Would You Do?, a new show on ABC, they conduct another revealing experiment. Through hidden cameras, we witness several customers come into a store in which the cashier is an actor who is racist and refuses to serve two Mexican migrant workers (also actors). Of the 88 people who came into the store during the experiment’s duration, 49 didn’t get involved in the conflict between the cashier and the migrant workers, even when the cashier made statements like “Go back to your own country,” “If you have to come here, at least learn English first,” and “They are stealing our jobs.” Nine participants even sided with the cashier. And thankfully, the other 30 spoke out in defense of the day laborers.
Again, hopefully the prevalence behavior like this will continue to decrease until racism is extinct. However, just last April a Yahoo poll showed that “about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president.” Now, with Obama soon to be inaugurated, it will be interesting to see if the opinions of that 8 percent can be changed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28563183/
http://abc.go.com/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9761.html
Reach For the Stars—But Not Too High
President-elect Barack Obama plans to significantly cut NASA’s budget to provide more funding for his education plan. His early education plan “will be [partially] paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years.” Obama plans to leave the Constellation program a $500 million/year budget for their “manufacturing and technology base.” Among other consequences, the cuts would delay the introduction of Orion and also delay a space shuttle’s return to Earth.
This is ironic, as Obama insists that one of his main priorities in education reform is to “make math and science education a national priority.” Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz agrees, noting that “Obama’s plan to help our children reach for the stars is financed in part by slashing a program that helps us learn about those very same stars.”
Obama stated that he does have “a strong belief in NASA and the process of space exploration,” yet he expects the Constellation program to run on a mere $500 million/year budget? He further stated, “I do think that our program has been stuck for a while – that the space shuttle mission did not inspire the imagination of the public.”
NASA may appear to have come up with few earth-shattering discoveries recently, but that does not mean it is “stuck.” Discovering new worlds and working to understand our universe is a huge job, impossible to complete. We need to make space exploration a top priority to benefit our planet in the long run. With our planet’s health deteriorating every day, and no cohesive plan to help it, we must look to the universe for solutions. And sorry, Obama, but NASA is not aiming to “inspire the imagination of the public”—the association has been working hard to make discoveries that will advance our civilization and ensure our safety and survival. Investing in education today may benefit our country throughout the next century, but we should constantly be investing in space exploration to benefit the human race for the rest of its life.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/03/02/obama-talks-sense-about-nasa/
This is ironic, as Obama insists that one of his main priorities in education reform is to “make math and science education a national priority.” Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz agrees, noting that “Obama’s plan to help our children reach for the stars is financed in part by slashing a program that helps us learn about those very same stars.”
Obama stated that he does have “a strong belief in NASA and the process of space exploration,” yet he expects the Constellation program to run on a mere $500 million/year budget? He further stated, “I do think that our program has been stuck for a while – that the space shuttle mission did not inspire the imagination of the public.”
NASA may appear to have come up with few earth-shattering discoveries recently, but that does not mean it is “stuck.” Discovering new worlds and working to understand our universe is a huge job, impossible to complete. We need to make space exploration a top priority to benefit our planet in the long run. With our planet’s health deteriorating every day, and no cohesive plan to help it, we must look to the universe for solutions. And sorry, Obama, but NASA is not aiming to “inspire the imagination of the public”—the association has been working hard to make discoveries that will advance our civilization and ensure our safety and survival. Investing in education today may benefit our country throughout the next century, but we should constantly be investing in space exploration to benefit the human race for the rest of its life.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/03/02/obama-talks-sense-about-nasa/
Political Meritocracy
The American dream is based on merit, the belief that success can come to anyone provided they work hard for it. As some many pundits have exclaimed recently, Obama’s election victory is perhaps the single greatest example of this pursuit. Not only is the president-elect soon to lead the country, he is already the unofficial leader of the American meritocracy. Is this meritocracy’s greatest hour?
Unfortunately, current events since the election have been a rude reminder since the inspiring campaign of ’08. Blagoyevich has been impeached for trying to “sell” Obama’s Senate seat. This is offensive as not only illegal and immoral, but also goes against our meritocratic sensibilities. It is wrong to give political power to the highest bidder, rather than the person most suited for the job. The same scenario is occurring in New York. Caroline Kennedy has emerged from political obscurity as a leading contender for Clinton’s seat. Why is she in the running? The Kennedy name. I don’t wish to bash either Kennedy or Burris; they may be the best man and woman for the job. The dubiousness of the process, however, deserves some scrutinizing.
This has led me to consider the state of American political meritocracy. I’ve only really been able to follow two presidential elections, 2004 and 2008. And I feel most of the candidates have not embodied the American meritocratic ideal. Bush was helped by his name, perhaps even pushed into the presidency, despite not being very competent. Kerry is a billionaire. Hillary became qualified via her husband’s success. McCain’s billionaire wife can’t have hurt his run. Mitt Romney wouldn’t have been able to run without his personal fortune. The exceptions are Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. At what level, then, does the meritocracy break down? It seems that many politicians occupy the highest strata at least partially due to unmeritocratic reasons.
The other dimension is the public’s reaction to political meritocracy. I am firmly a belief that politicians should be based on merit. And it’s safe to say that most my fellow countrymen are proud of the American dream, of our meritocratic society. Yet I still see this break down in politics. The most obvious and recent example is Sarah Palin. She was, I admit, phenomenally popular with a certain base. I believe people supported her as a politician, however, for unmeritocratic reasons. She was normal, someone the average American felt comfortable with, not necessarily the most competent leader. Historically, American politicians have always tried to present the image of being common, non-elitist. They of course also argue for your vote based on meritocratic reasons (greater experience, for example), but it’s always been a danger to be “too smart” for the presidency.
My belief that Obama’s victory has brought a resurgence in meritocracy still stands. My hope is that, should Obama’s term(s) prove particularly successful (he certainly has enough challenges to shine in), our country will move even further towards political meritocracy.
Sources:
Nicolas Lehman, “The Smart Club Comes to Town,” New York Times, November 29, 1992: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DB1038F93AA15752C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Faltering Meritocracy in America, The Economist, December 29th 2004:
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3518560
Unfortunately, current events since the election have been a rude reminder since the inspiring campaign of ’08. Blagoyevich has been impeached for trying to “sell” Obama’s Senate seat. This is offensive as not only illegal and immoral, but also goes against our meritocratic sensibilities. It is wrong to give political power to the highest bidder, rather than the person most suited for the job. The same scenario is occurring in New York. Caroline Kennedy has emerged from political obscurity as a leading contender for Clinton’s seat. Why is she in the running? The Kennedy name. I don’t wish to bash either Kennedy or Burris; they may be the best man and woman for the job. The dubiousness of the process, however, deserves some scrutinizing.
This has led me to consider the state of American political meritocracy. I’ve only really been able to follow two presidential elections, 2004 and 2008. And I feel most of the candidates have not embodied the American meritocratic ideal. Bush was helped by his name, perhaps even pushed into the presidency, despite not being very competent. Kerry is a billionaire. Hillary became qualified via her husband’s success. McCain’s billionaire wife can’t have hurt his run. Mitt Romney wouldn’t have been able to run without his personal fortune. The exceptions are Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. At what level, then, does the meritocracy break down? It seems that many politicians occupy the highest strata at least partially due to unmeritocratic reasons.
The other dimension is the public’s reaction to political meritocracy. I am firmly a belief that politicians should be based on merit. And it’s safe to say that most my fellow countrymen are proud of the American dream, of our meritocratic society. Yet I still see this break down in politics. The most obvious and recent example is Sarah Palin. She was, I admit, phenomenally popular with a certain base. I believe people supported her as a politician, however, for unmeritocratic reasons. She was normal, someone the average American felt comfortable with, not necessarily the most competent leader. Historically, American politicians have always tried to present the image of being common, non-elitist. They of course also argue for your vote based on meritocratic reasons (greater experience, for example), but it’s always been a danger to be “too smart” for the presidency.
My belief that Obama’s victory has brought a resurgence in meritocracy still stands. My hope is that, should Obama’s term(s) prove particularly successful (he certainly has enough challenges to shine in), our country will move even further towards political meritocracy.
Sources:
Nicolas Lehman, “The Smart Club Comes to Town,” New York Times, November 29, 1992: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DB1038F93AA15752C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Faltering Meritocracy in America, The Economist, December 29th 2004:
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3518560
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Taxation Without Representation!
This is the battle cry of thousands of supporters of the D.C. Voting Rights Act and the motto displayed on the Washington, D.C. license plate. This act is the bipartisan consensus bill sponsored in the House by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). The bill would grant Washington, D.C. residents one voting member in the House. Currently, D.C. residents do not have official voting representation in the US Congress. They have no representatives in the Senate, but do have a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives. Residents of Washington, D.C. cannot legally have voting representatives in the Congress because the Constitution only grants this to residents of states.
This is clearly a controversial issue. In my opinion, it is unfair that D.C. residents pay the second highest per capita federal income taxes in the nation but are denied voting representation in Congress. For over 200 years, 600,000 residents of our country have been deprived of their right to determine how they are governed—all because of a technicality. Until 50 years ago, D.C. residents weren’t even allowed to vote in presidential elections.
Thankfully, there is something being done. If enacted, the D.C. Voting Rights Act would obtain the congressional representation for the residents of Washington, D.C. that they should have had all along. But for the Act to become law, Congress would have to pass the bill and soon-to-be President Obama would have to sign it into law. Fortunately, Obama supports D.C. statehood (making Washington, D.C. officially a state) and congressional representation for D.C.
http://www.dcvote.org/
This is clearly a controversial issue. In my opinion, it is unfair that D.C. residents pay the second highest per capita federal income taxes in the nation but are denied voting representation in Congress. For over 200 years, 600,000 residents of our country have been deprived of their right to determine how they are governed—all because of a technicality. Until 50 years ago, D.C. residents weren’t even allowed to vote in presidential elections.
Thankfully, there is something being done. If enacted, the D.C. Voting Rights Act would obtain the congressional representation for the residents of Washington, D.C. that they should have had all along. But for the Act to become law, Congress would have to pass the bill and soon-to-be President Obama would have to sign it into law. Fortunately, Obama supports D.C. statehood (making Washington, D.C. officially a state) and congressional representation for D.C.
http://www.dcvote.org/
Friday, January 9, 2009
Home Sweet Houston
It was wonderful to be home in the land of warm weather, cowboy boots, and tamales over fall break. However, a giant billboard on the side of the highway gave a more sarcastic dimension to my otherwise Dorothy-esque expression that “there is no place like home.” As I made the drive from the city back to my small suburb, I passed a giant megachurch, looked up and saw “Marking Our City, 150 ft. Cross, Coming Soon” written on a picture of a giant cross and the Houston cityscape. This billboard isn’t new, it has been up for at least a year, but over last 4 months in the Princeton Bubble I had forgotten. So for those of you who don’t have the pleasure of living in the city where bigger is always better, here are the details of the campaign. Grace Church launched a fundraising campaign with the intent of building two 200-feet white crosses at the north and south entrances to the city (the church happens to have a campus on each location). Well the FAA shot down the 200 ft goal because of a nearby airport, so the revised plan describes 150 ft. crosses. Legally, the church owns the land and has every right to build the colossal crosses, but the language of the campaign is upsetting. Pastor Steve Riggle wants to start a movement that would initiate similar campaigns in every major American city to celebrate the Christian heritage of our nation. Perhaps, there is no controversy here as the crosses will be constructed on private land but, I can’t but imagine that a similar campaign to build a 15-story tribute to pagan gods or a Muslim star and crescent or a Star of David would be met with some resistance. Luckily there will probably be a long time to debate the issue, since the recession will definitely slow the collection of the necessary funding. We know everything is bigger in Texas, but should one of the city’s many religions dominate the cityscape?
Sources:
1. http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/20453933/cross_controversy.htm?pageid=23006
2. http://www.grace.tv/ministries/citywide_prayer/
3. http://thesop.org/index.php?article=12784
Sources:
1. http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/20453933/cross_controversy.htm?pageid=23006
2. http://www.grace.tv/ministries/citywide_prayer/
3. http://thesop.org/index.php?article=12784
Monday, January 5, 2009
Shhh…Don’t tell your patient!
Doctors go to medical school for 7-8 years and then participate in a 3-5 year residency. Why? Well, I thought they were accumulating knowledge that they could share information and skills with their patients in order to meet their patients’ health care needs. Apparently the Bush administration thinks otherwise. On December 19, 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation that protects against the discrimination of health professionals who withhold care from their patients based on moral beliefs. The protection of doctors who refuse to perform procedures based on conscience is already protected by existing law, what is novel (and frightening) about the new is its wide-scope. Although the Department of Health and Human Services claims that the regulation “encourages providers to engage their patients early on in “full, open, and honest conversations” to disclose what services they do and do not provide,” the language of the law protects physicians who don’t discuss with their patients certain options to which they are morally opposed. This means I could walk into a doctors office, ask for my options and here options A, B, and C and never even know that option D, E, and F exist. I agree that doctors shouldn’t have to perform operations if they are morally opposed but should they be allowed to act like certain options don’t exist just because they don’t like them? Maybe If I stop talking about finals, they will just magically go away. Hmm…that would be nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
