The link below is to an NPR story about an Atlanta family's choices and how they have effected their cost of living and the environment. A lot of us make choices without considering the environmental impacts. I think this will be the first in a series of posts about lifestyle choices and environmental degradation. I heard this story and thought people in the area might like to hear how Atlanta is referenced in relation to the rest of the country...It's pretty telling.
"Life in the 'Burbs: Heavy Costs for Families, Climate"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89231809
Here's another story (you actually have to read this one) about Atlanta's pollution and why it is so bad even when compared to larger cities.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2001/2001-01-31-atlanta-pollution.htm
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Barack Obama and Race
“Obama wouldn’t be where he is if he weren’t black.” People who believe this display an inability to critically analyze the politics of this primary election process that has left them with an opinion that discounts those who voted for Obama as mindless liberals who can’t help but vote for a “black” candidate as well as an opinion that fails to acknowledge the politics of race that are present elsewhere in our electoral system.
To the first point, Obama has done so well among voters of all ethic backgrounds because of his policy plans and ideas on how to deal with America’s current and future problems, not because he is “black”. Without a doubt, some voters will vote for him simply on the basis of his race, but the vast majority of the people I’ve spoken to and heard from on media outlets have not. To assume this is bias is to steal the free will and reasoning of thirteen million people and replace it with an inability to think beyond race. That, to me, is absurd. Many believe that Obama has no policy plans or ideas. For them, I suggest they go to his website, take a couple of days off work, and go through all of his plans on all the issues he addresses.
To my second point, I would like to ask those who believe that Obama is where he is because he is “black” one question: Where would John McCain be if he weren’t white? Do you think a black man with McCain’s record could ever be the GOP’s presidential pick? The answer is NO. People are quick to say Obama’s “blackness” gives him an edge, but recoil at the suggestion that anyone’s whiteness is an advantage. This denial is part of what makes race a continuing problem in the US.
The above posting is another editorial to the Newnan Times Herald. I think I'd like to expand on these ideas a little:
A lot of people say, of both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, that they have no "ideas". By "ideas" I think people mean policy plans. To think this is way off base. As I stated in the editorial, anyone who thinks this needs to take some time to mine the two candidates web sites and see what their plans are on individual issues. The reason we hear so little about what their policy plans are is because the two candidates are very similar in this respect. When choosing between two candidates you don't pay any attention to what is similar about them, you choose (vote) on the basis of differences. I think this is why the media has latched on to race and gender in the latter part of this primary. I also think Clinton has played both the race and the gender card in a very two faced way (for full disclosure, I voted for Obama). Either way, in the search for characteristics that differentiate these two candidates, race, gender, and personality are all the media can write about and keep an audience's attention.
On the other more important, and complex, point, race in America is all about denying Caucasians have a race at all. The race issue is discussed on a white background so that the only race that is noticed is the race of those who aren't "white". It wasn't that long ago in American history that differences were made among "white" people. Irish, Russian, Polish, etc: These all used to be considered to be different ethic groups and all these groups faced ridicule based on their "race". In my hometown paper, the Times-Herald, I once read an editorial by one of their regular contributors, Alex McRae, that made race relations among WASP's and other European immigrants to America seem like some kind of fairy tale where everyone got along and no prejudice ever existed. This is far from the true history of these later immigrants to this country. Today, all these groups are colectively called "white", especially here in the South
.
Obama's race is considered an asset to him while John McCain's advantage of being "white" is completely ignored. This point is made even more important by the fact that most of the people making this claim come from the right side of the isle, those who have shown themselves unable and/or unwilling to elect black leaders of any kind. There are some exceptions. There are some black Republicans who have been elected to office, but they are few and far between. This denial of favor towards whites and the advantages of being white is at the heart of the race issue in America.
I see racism towards non-whites by whites almost on a daily basis. At work, among people I know, and among family members. However, these same racists will deny that whites have any advantages in our society. On the contrary, they usually argue that people of other races have an unfair advantage over them. The say this despite their own racism as well as the glaring evidence that it is not true (no non-white president, few non-white senators in history, few non-white CEO's, etc).
As a white person, I feel that most of the progress made in race relations has come from the legal realm, and not the social realm. The social realm is the only place real racial reconciliation can be made. Though non-whites are no longer denied the right to vote they are still in large part misunderstood by whites.
I wish I knew more about non-white racism. Racism towards whites is just as offensive as any other form of racism. That being said, in America, non-white racism has never taken the form of social and political oppression. It has never been intergrated into our laws and ways of life. That's why people notice Obama's race and not McCain's.
To the first point, Obama has done so well among voters of all ethic backgrounds because of his policy plans and ideas on how to deal with America’s current and future problems, not because he is “black”. Without a doubt, some voters will vote for him simply on the basis of his race, but the vast majority of the people I’ve spoken to and heard from on media outlets have not. To assume this is bias is to steal the free will and reasoning of thirteen million people and replace it with an inability to think beyond race. That, to me, is absurd. Many believe that Obama has no policy plans or ideas. For them, I suggest they go to his website, take a couple of days off work, and go through all of his plans on all the issues he addresses.
To my second point, I would like to ask those who believe that Obama is where he is because he is “black” one question: Where would John McCain be if he weren’t white? Do you think a black man with McCain’s record could ever be the GOP’s presidential pick? The answer is NO. People are quick to say Obama’s “blackness” gives him an edge, but recoil at the suggestion that anyone’s whiteness is an advantage. This denial is part of what makes race a continuing problem in the US.
The above posting is another editorial to the Newnan Times Herald. I think I'd like to expand on these ideas a little:
A lot of people say, of both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, that they have no "ideas". By "ideas" I think people mean policy plans. To think this is way off base. As I stated in the editorial, anyone who thinks this needs to take some time to mine the two candidates web sites and see what their plans are on individual issues. The reason we hear so little about what their policy plans are is because the two candidates are very similar in this respect. When choosing between two candidates you don't pay any attention to what is similar about them, you choose (vote) on the basis of differences. I think this is why the media has latched on to race and gender in the latter part of this primary. I also think Clinton has played both the race and the gender card in a very two faced way (for full disclosure, I voted for Obama). Either way, in the search for characteristics that differentiate these two candidates, race, gender, and personality are all the media can write about and keep an audience's attention.
On the other more important, and complex, point, race in America is all about denying Caucasians have a race at all. The race issue is discussed on a white background so that the only race that is noticed is the race of those who aren't "white". It wasn't that long ago in American history that differences were made among "white" people. Irish, Russian, Polish, etc: These all used to be considered to be different ethic groups and all these groups faced ridicule based on their "race". In my hometown paper, the Times-Herald, I once read an editorial by one of their regular contributors, Alex McRae, that made race relations among WASP's and other European immigrants to America seem like some kind of fairy tale where everyone got along and no prejudice ever existed. This is far from the true history of these later immigrants to this country. Today, all these groups are colectively called "white", especially here in the South
.
Obama's race is considered an asset to him while John McCain's advantage of being "white" is completely ignored. This point is made even more important by the fact that most of the people making this claim come from the right side of the isle, those who have shown themselves unable and/or unwilling to elect black leaders of any kind. There are some exceptions. There are some black Republicans who have been elected to office, but they are few and far between. This denial of favor towards whites and the advantages of being white is at the heart of the race issue in America.
I see racism towards non-whites by whites almost on a daily basis. At work, among people I know, and among family members. However, these same racists will deny that whites have any advantages in our society. On the contrary, they usually argue that people of other races have an unfair advantage over them. The say this despite their own racism as well as the glaring evidence that it is not true (no non-white president, few non-white senators in history, few non-white CEO's, etc).
As a white person, I feel that most of the progress made in race relations has come from the legal realm, and not the social realm. The social realm is the only place real racial reconciliation can be made. Though non-whites are no longer denied the right to vote they are still in large part misunderstood by whites.
I wish I knew more about non-white racism. Racism towards whites is just as offensive as any other form of racism. That being said, in America, non-white racism has never taken the form of social and political oppression. It has never been intergrated into our laws and ways of life. That's why people notice Obama's race and not McCain's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
