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.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Myth Buster
So, this guy wrote an editorial to my local paper, The Newnan Times Herald, making some pretty typical conservatives claims. I took the opportunity to correct him and wrote a letter in response that gave statistics (from the real world) to back up my claims. My rebuttal has not been printed and I don't know that it will be printed at all...and if it is, I don't know that it will be printed in it's entirety. In my response I cited the sources of my stats and also gave this blog address as a place readers could find a link to those stats. Whether or not my blog address can be printed or not (it contains the world "ass") is unknown as well, however, the stats are good ones and below I will give them with a little context, too.
One claim the author of the letter made was that most of the tax money that goes to government programs that provide money and services (welfare) to poor people comes from the middle and working class. This however is not true. According to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, the top 10% of income earners paid 68% of all federal taxes and that the top 11-25% paid another 17%. That's the "lion's share" of all federal taxes. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_T/t4.cfm
The next claim he made, that I addressed, was kind of crazy. Though it was crazy it has a lot of traction with people where I live. He claimed that half the U.S. population works and that this working half supports another half that doesn't work at all. This is way, way, way off the mark, but he wrote it in all sincerity. Right now, the unemployment rate is about 5%. it's been that way for quite a while and has never gotten anywhere near 50% in recent history (the last 60 years).http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_T/t4.cfm
In the same vein as the last point, I went on to show that approximately .65% (a little more than half of one percent) is all that was spent of the entire federal budget on TANF (Temporary Assistants to Needy Families; our "welfare" agency that was formerly AFDC) in 2006. I went on to say that the vast majority of "welfare" goes to the elderly, the disabled, and children, not people not willing to work.http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS22385.pdf (page 4).
This are all fairly popular myths among conservatives and I don't like to turn down the chance to dispel them, so, I tried!
One claim the author of the letter made was that most of the tax money that goes to government programs that provide money and services (welfare) to poor people comes from the middle and working class. This however is not true. According to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, the top 10% of income earners paid 68% of all federal taxes and that the top 11-25% paid another 17%. That's the "lion's share" of all federal taxes. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_T/t4.cfm
The next claim he made, that I addressed, was kind of crazy. Though it was crazy it has a lot of traction with people where I live. He claimed that half the U.S. population works and that this working half supports another half that doesn't work at all. This is way, way, way off the mark, but he wrote it in all sincerity. Right now, the unemployment rate is about 5%. it's been that way for quite a while and has never gotten anywhere near 50% in recent history (the last 60 years).http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_T/t4.cfm
In the same vein as the last point, I went on to show that approximately .65% (a little more than half of one percent) is all that was spent of the entire federal budget on TANF (Temporary Assistants to Needy Families; our "welfare" agency that was formerly AFDC) in 2006. I went on to say that the vast majority of "welfare" goes to the elderly, the disabled, and children, not people not willing to work.http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS22385.pdf (page 4).
This are all fairly popular myths among conservatives and I don't like to turn down the chance to dispel them, so, I tried!
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
We Assumed Things Couldn't Be Worse
Here's an editorial of mine that was printed today in the Newnan Times Herald. If what's said in the piece seems obvious and short it's because it was crafted for an audience that generally takes these truths for granted and I am limited in the amount of words I can use. The vast majority of the editorials my local paper receives praise our president and the war unconditionally....
In 2003, the public was told that Saddam and his regime had ties to Al-Queda, WMD’s, and ominous nuclear ambitions. Saddam had gassed Kurds and ruled Iraq with an iron fist for decades (the gassing occurred while the U.S. was still backing him). It seemed at the time that a U.S. invasion could only produce positive change in the Middle East and a more secure America. We learned shortly after our invasion that all our worst fears were unfounded despite our “best” intelligence. Now, with Iraq in almost total disarray and little hope of democracy taking hold, it’s hard not to look at the situation and ask if we haven’t made things worse.
I know Saddam was a vicious ruler and that most Iraqis suffered horribly under his regime. However, things don’t look “better”. In the gassing of the Kurds in the 80’s, Saddam is alleged to have killed 5,000 civilians. In the last four years, according to sources that only count civilian deaths directly related to U.S. military activity, some 70,000 Iraqis have died. This number does not include sectarian violence that is the byproduct of our inability to secure Iraq. Millions more have fled the country due to the violence and insecurity. There are forces more destructive and tyrannical than authoritarian dictatorship. Chaos due to a lack of security is one of them.
Also, during Saddam’s reign, other authoritarian powers in the region, like Syria and Iran, were held from gaining ground. Now, with a pullout some time in the future likely, we have paved the way for these powers to gain influence and possibly cause a state of total war with other countries in the region.
I am not saying that Saddam’s reign was all rainbows and flowers. What I am saying is that we shouldn’t have assumed that we couldn’t make things worse.
In 2003, the public was told that Saddam and his regime had ties to Al-Queda, WMD’s, and ominous nuclear ambitions. Saddam had gassed Kurds and ruled Iraq with an iron fist for decades (the gassing occurred while the U.S. was still backing him). It seemed at the time that a U.S. invasion could only produce positive change in the Middle East and a more secure America. We learned shortly after our invasion that all our worst fears were unfounded despite our “best” intelligence. Now, with Iraq in almost total disarray and little hope of democracy taking hold, it’s hard not to look at the situation and ask if we haven’t made things worse.
I know Saddam was a vicious ruler and that most Iraqis suffered horribly under his regime. However, things don’t look “better”. In the gassing of the Kurds in the 80’s, Saddam is alleged to have killed 5,000 civilians. In the last four years, according to sources that only count civilian deaths directly related to U.S. military activity, some 70,000 Iraqis have died. This number does not include sectarian violence that is the byproduct of our inability to secure Iraq. Millions more have fled the country due to the violence and insecurity. There are forces more destructive and tyrannical than authoritarian dictatorship. Chaos due to a lack of security is one of them.
Also, during Saddam’s reign, other authoritarian powers in the region, like Syria and Iran, were held from gaining ground. Now, with a pullout some time in the future likely, we have paved the way for these powers to gain influence and possibly cause a state of total war with other countries in the region.
I am not saying that Saddam’s reign was all rainbows and flowers. What I am saying is that we shouldn’t have assumed that we couldn’t make things worse.
Monday, November 5, 2007
About me and this blog...
To start this thing off I guess I'll give a brief account of who I am and what I'd like to do with the blog. I'm 25 years old and live in Newnan, GA which has been my home for about 11 years. I just married my girlfriend of 7 years, Whitney, in Septmeber. I also just graduated from GA State University with a BA in Political Science (minor in Philosophy). I like to write (thus, the blog!) and am passionate about a variety of subjects and issues which I plan to write about in this blog. Among those subjects I care so much about are vegetarianism and animal rights, politics of all sorts, religion, and a host of others. I hope that this blog will ignite more than negative comments on my views. I hope this blog can be a forum for discussion and facilitate understanding among those who read it and myself. I plan on taking stands on issues that will probably be unpopular and I welcome readers to give honest feedback on the things I write. I plan on responding on the blog to most comments. I hope it is fun and stuff.
Friday, October 26, 2007
My First Blog Entry
Yo, yo, yo. Broadcasting live to no one...This is my first blog entry. Everyone (no one) stay tuned as the drama unfolds!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
