|
|
Post by RocDoc on Nov 14, 2008 17:04:52 GMT -5
now i see that was in thursday's trib...here's today's 'being fair' follow-up:
Girl's lesson: Bias, like shirts, picked out at home
John Kass
November 14, 2008
Catherine Vogt—the brave 8th grader who used a T-shirt test to find out about political tolerance in Obamaland—is something of a celebrity now, thanks to you readers of this column.
By the time you read this, she will have already finished a round of TV and radio interviews, including a PBS spot for a Philadelphia station. It's all somewhat unsettling for a 14-year-old girl who had important high school entrance exams Thursday and a tryout for "The Music Man" at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School in Oak Park.
"Well, a lot of people came up to me and told me that they saw me in the paper, and my teacher told me that a lot of people were telling her 'Way to go, way to support your student' and everything," Catherine told me Thursday. "It's been very exciting and hectic too."
The Catherine Vogt Experiment on Diversity of Thought took place before the presidential election. She shared her idea secretly with her history teacher, Norma Cassin-Pountney.
When she wore the McCain shirt, she was stupid and was told to go die. One kid said she should be "crucifixed," which should prompt outrage from that student's grammar/lit teacher. Crucifixed?
One student whispered—perhaps like Winston Smith in "1984"—"I really like your shirt." But she said it quietly so no one else would hear and denounce her.
And when Catherine wore the Obama shirt? Her brains grew back and she was smart again and welcomed into polite society.
Since many liberal journalists live in Oak Park, I expect to receive many snarky reviews. My crime? I dared to illustrate, through the actions of a brave 8th-grade girl, that even high-minded liberal communities can be intolerant, no matter how many times parents gush on about "diversity" at their cocktail parties.
So much for the audacity of hope.
But it's also true that if Catherine lived in a beet-red community and wore an Obama shirt, she'd get a similar negative, intolerant and ugly reaction. And certainly some Republican children would outrage their grammar/lit teachers by wanting her crucifixed as well.
All such outrage is predictable. Whether red or blue or right or left, many adults don't get it. But Catherine Vogt sure gets it: Children learn their politics from their parents.
A kid doesn't learn to love Democrats or hate Republicans or vice versa by reading editorials. You can't blame this one on bloggers or "Grand Theft Auto." You can't even blame Fitty Cent or however he incorrectly spells his own stage name.
Many parents in Oak Park and elsewhere want their kids to figure out things for themselves. Others only want a mirror for their own tribalism. Parents, Catherine told me, "are actually a pretty big influence on kids. They take a lot of what's home to school."
At school Thursday in Ms. Cassin-Pountney's class, they discussed Catherine's experiment and my column.
"The students were mostly shocked because when they read it they kind of figured it out. They were like, 'Oh, I actually said that thing to her and now—I'm not mentioned—but I'm actually in the paper for saying something mean?' "
She said her classmates tried to determine whether she cracked and gave up their names to me, but because she's not a Chicago machine politician under federal indictment, she didn't have to name names.
"They were all like, 'So who did you mention and what did you say?' But I didn't give out any names," she said.
There were some rough patches on Thursday. The phone rang off the hook at home. She had her big tests and that tryout. And her parents—liberal Democratic mom and conservative Republican dad—had to run down to school to stave off an impromptu imposition of the Fairness Doctrine.
"Some parents were upset that one teacher remarked about her shirt. And other parents were upset that the experiment was conducted in the first place, and didn't go through 'proper channels,' " said Catherine's mom, Pamela Webster.
"So we rushed down to school to say we were backing the principal and all the teachers and not to make a big thing of it," she said. "It was just crazy. There was no crime committed here."
Not even a thought crime?
"No," she said. "We support the principal and the school. Let this be a way for students and teachers to discuss the issue. That's what we want in our home, not indoctrination but discussion."
Catherine still won't say whether she's a Democrat or a Republican.
"I still have four years to pick a guy or a woman," she said of the presidential election in 2012, which will be her first. "I've still got four more years. Then I can decide."
Catherine says she doesn't want to become a lawyer, but perhaps a surgeon. Either way, this week, she was a great teacher.
Thank you, Catherine.
jskass@tribune.com
you're welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by skovrecky on Nov 17, 2008 13:15:33 GMT -5
Huh... Jeri Ryan is HOT.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Nov 17, 2008 13:20:41 GMT -5
first of you've got to define stupid.
and you'd fail because it's impossible.
ie 'relative to what?'
re 'stupid' in general, all of america's lawyers are building their fucking careers on it.
some with the benefit of nicely paying off their bmws too.
'it', in terms of defending the 'stupid', no matter what they've done due to their failings of intellect.
whether it's a chronic case or momentary, it doesn't matter to them.
it's never your fault, ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Nov 17, 2008 13:26:12 GMT -5
we hold these truths to be self-evident... |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 17, 2008 16:03:26 GMT -5
Is that really "political tolerance"? or just your regular old high school tolerance? I was made fun of for wearing a Jimi Hendrix shirt. While I think it's an interesting experiment, with not particularly surprising results, the newsworthyness of it seems to read into more then I think is there.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Nov 17, 2008 16:49:19 GMT -5
this was middle school in the next town over from me, and the kid was an eigth grader....but some teacher(s) also threw a wet blanket on expressing herself as well.
but y'see kass explained it pretty fucking well, i thought, regardless of grade school, high school whatevertf level of socialization these kids had:
But it's also true that if Catherine lived in a beet-red community and wore an Obama shirt, she'd get a similar negative, intolerant and ugly reaction. And certainly some Republican children would outrage their grammar/lit teachers by wanting her crucifixed as well.
All such outrage is predictable. Whether red or blue or right or left, many adults don't get it. But Catherine Vogt sure gets it: Children learn their politics from their parents.
A kid doesn't learn to love Democrats or hate Republicans or vice versa by reading editorials. You can't blame this one on bloggers or "Grand Theft Auto." You can't even blame Fitty Cent or however he incorrectly spells his own stage name.
Many parents in Oak Park and elsewhere want their kids to figure out things for themselves. Others only want a mirror for their own tribalism. Parents, Catherine told me, "are actually a pretty big influence on kids. They take a lot of what's home to school."
you saw that part?
it's better than just 'yeah, they're stupid' i thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 17, 2008 17:35:22 GMT -5
Yeah, I saw that part and I think it ignores the cliquishness of pretty much everything at that age. I don't think and didn't imply "yeah, they're just stupid", nor did I say she shouldn't have done it. Kids get a lot of things from their parents, they also believe some things just because it's the opposite of what their parents think. My comment was mainly in regards to national news worthiness of it. It's one thing to say "hey this is pretty cool thing she did" but another to assign too much significance to the findings. I simply think the article attempts imply a deeper meaning that just isn't there.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Nov 17, 2008 23:23:26 GMT -5
Yeah, I saw that part and I think it ignores the cliquishness of pretty much everything at that age. I don't think and didn't imply "yeah, they're just stupid", nor did I say she shouldn't have done it. Kids get a lot of things from their parents, they also believe some things just because it's the opposite of what their parents think. My comment was mainly in regards to national news worthiness of it. It's one thing to say "hey this is pretty cool thing she did" but another to assign too much significance to the findings. I simply think the article attempts imply a deeper meaning that just isn't there. typical of how many a 'small observation' of mine was blown up into something FAR beyond what i meant for it to be...which often and usually was 'well, this is interesting'. kass is NOT national for one. kids' hypocrisy and duplicity is not national news either. no. very commonplace. kass has been the page 2 columnist at the chicago trib for 5-6 years probably, actually quite a good poistion in this city, portraying himself as an irascible shit-stirrer examining the richard m daley administration and poking at them constantly (and deservedly because they aren't perfect) AND he's a professed conservative (tho he's far from the lockstep 'stupid' repub that matt's AGAIN chosen to tar everyone; what to say but tell him to go fuck himself, really..) who i thought painted obama's associations and opportunism here in an intelligently questioning way without blindly fawning over his charismatic attributes. like a sufficient majority seemed to do like a ton of bricks. that some outlets picked up the story (philly was cited, right?) is THEIR choice. and based on their judgement probably seeing that this is just an interesting small story here. there is no-one assigning any sort of world-beating 'significance' here. bfd. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 18, 2008 4:15:07 GMT -5
"You" haven't entered into my part of the discussion at all doc. Why post it if you don't want to talk about it? or you know just don't respond to my small observations. I haven't blown anything up into anything else. I just said I think the article tries to imply deeper significance then is there. Nothing more nothing less. I'm not attacking anyone, nobody got called a name. I just had some thoughts on something you posted, next time I'll keep them to myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Nov 19, 2008 1:11:02 GMT -5
"You" haven't entered into my part of the discussion at all doc. ... ded, i wasn't in any way saying that i had BUT that you saw this local guy's observation as 'how does HE think this is worthy of being published in a major metropolitan paper?', as though he'd made some sort of major pronouncement before which everyone should bow and scrape. same way as some of my observations in the past here where i felt i was just minding my own bizzyness had all sorts of aggrieved know-it-all fuckheads piling on me thinking that i'd just change the ending to the fucking bible or something equivalent. i was JUST trying to give you a local person's context to who kass is and what sort of a job he does here....in RESPONSE to your 'well I think his observation's for shit in terms of the notice it's receiving'. kass goes for a the local digs by-and-large. if he wanted to zing oak park (the 'town of broad lawns and narrow minds' according to native son ernest hemingway) and it's ferociously liberal and self-righteous image, it's up to him. sub]I'm not attacking anyone, nobody got called a name.[/sub] oh, yeah. matt did from the get go. you mean i can't include comments to more than one poster in a single post? addressed to you alone, was it? 2 of you were commenting. so this 'i didn't this or that' is immaterial because i knew you didn't and still you needed to throw up a defense. it really wasn't called for...other than to add to your misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what i was trying to get across. nor did i say you were 'attacking' me, but that the 'harumph' reaction to a no-huge-deal article by kass was in the same vein. |
|
|
|
Post by skovrecky on Nov 19, 2008 13:01:04 GMT -5
typical of how many a 'small observation' of mine was blown up into something FAR beyond what i meant for it to be...which often and usually was 'well, this is interesting'. kass is NOT national for one. kids' hypocrisy and duplicity is not national news either. no. very commonplace. kass has been the page 2 columnist at the chicago trib for 5-6 years probably, actually quite a good poistion in this city, portraying himself as an irascible shit-stirrer examining the richard m daley administration and poking at them constantly (and deservedly because they aren't perfect) AND he's a professed conservative (tho he's far from the lockstep 'stupid' repub that matt's AGAIN chosen to tar everyone; what to say but tell him to go fuck himself, really..) who i thought painted obama's associations and opportunism here in an intelligently questioning way without blindly fawning over his charismatic attributes. like a sufficient majority seemed to do like a ton of bricks. that some outlets picked up the story (philly was cited, right?) is THEIR choice. and based on their judgement probably seeing that this is just an interesting small story here. there is no-one assigning any sort of world-beating 'significance' here. bfd. I wasn't talking about the author being stupid (although if he's a professed conservative I'm sure he is). I have listened to enough conservative talk radio windbags and read enough books from said windbags and studied the ideas of these windbags to consider their ideology stupid. I'm sure they feel the same way about mine. I know, talk radio windbags shouldn't count, but I've also read the ideas from many thoughtful, intelligent people who don't busy themselves spouting off at the mouth, but the ideas are still the same. They're simply presented differently. THE WORLD IS NOT THE SAME AS IT WAS 200+ YEARS AGO!!! Globalization being number 1. I'm tired of the moronic ideas of state rights, deregulation, cutting taxes for the wealthies Americans, and leaving civil rights up to the states. It's fucking stupid. I'll say it again, FUCKING STUPID. They may have been progressive ideas some 200 years ago, but they are antiquated and cute, and ultimately dumb. I just got done last night listening to Sean Hannity's radio show. He was talking about the same ideas as every conservative I've ever read or listened to. We need less regulation, more tax cuts, blah blah blah. Okay, Sean, that worked. I am not going to apologize for thinking that the two major philosophies of this country represent two very different facets of ideology. One looking to the past to solve the problems of now. The other understanding the failings of the past, the unique difficulties of the world today, and a wanting to build a future based on a better, brighter America. Everything must evolve. Otherwise, you're about as intelligent as those you want to emulate... and back in the "good old days" there were a lot of fucked up ideas. So explain to me all of the places like oh say England, who are in deep shit because they tax so much, eh?. It's the economic C curve in that the more taxes that you push on the population, the less power you have over your life and to put that money into things that YOU want and the less money you have to spend on say Madonna tickets or a car, or clothes, or any of the other things you would like to pay for. Seriously. Free Market is not the problem and we've had free market capitalism with a strong Keynes point of view that got us out of the great Depression (as well as WWII) and even FDR was smart enough to know that. The real problem is that we built our economy on a debt-induced demand side Friedman global model that is awful. We should probably get out of global deals and bring our manufacturing back and do real free trade for the good and services that everyone in the world provides. That's what they used to do and I think that makes more sense and is much more progressive and sensible. Instead of raising taxes, why don't we look at what we are spending our money on and cut the things we don't need like, oh say the war in Iran AND Afghanistan. That will shore up a shitload of money just on that alone. I disagree with you though and with the obvious erroneous language concerning slavery, I don't find the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution outdated or antiquated in any way. In fact, our Revolution was fought for small taxes that were levied on the people without representation. When you are taxed and you give the government control over your money, your freedoms go way, way down and you give the government too much control. The same government that runs FEMA, the VA, and other non-sense that is run terribly. Fuck that. And yeah, Sean Hannity is total douche, agreed there. |
|
|
|
Post by skovrecky on Nov 19, 2008 15:13:04 GMT -5
Why, in your opinion, is deregulation stupid? Are you confusing deregulation with greed? While I'm not a Milton Friedman-ite by any means, deregulation isn't always a bad thing. I don't think lowering taxes is stupid at all. What I think is misguided is the perception people have that their government should be their savior, and it shouldn't. That doesn't mean go all Newt Gingrich 94 and start cutting everything we give, but it should not be the source that we go for to help us. There are too many strings attached that in the long run, wind up ruining a healthy republic, in my opinion. I think that you can still meet the needs of the poor by not raising taxes and assist your unemployed as well. State governments should provide this as well and not so much the federal. Your community can be your savior if you really pay attention. War, defense, missile defense, subsidies, foreign aid, a lot of this could be done away with and drawn back so that we can provide other things for the citizens of this country. You'll probably agree.
What Hannity and Limbaugh and these guys should realize though is that they are very very far from the ideals of their party, the party that freed the slaves and made progressive issues stand out like with Teddy Roosevelt, who's foreign policy was stupid but domestically he was alright. Look at what Jefferson wrote about banks and you'll find that his ideas are not only not outdated but that we haven't been following them for a very very long time. Also, we should probably get rid of the private corporation that is the Federal Reserve. There are far more problems with our economy than just deregulation and all economists on all sides of the aisle across the globe agree on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by skovrecky on Nov 19, 2008 17:01:26 GMT -5
Oil is driven by OPEC, which is a globalism thing. There isn't any kind of oversight that our Congress will be able to have when you engage with the oil cartel. If we want their oil, we'll do what they say and like it.
The problem with GM doesn't go with SUVs, it goes with the fact that they didn't innovate decades ago as a business and America has not been innovative in manufacturing for decades now. If you notice though, any time America starts to suddenly really address alternative fuels and become independant, the prices suddenly fall like they are. Fuel standards have been increased exponentially and they still have expensive prices at the pump due to the taxation and lack of refining.
It is my opinion, that the health care debacle is due to the Insurance lobby as well as the amount of lawsuits that have hit the Insurance companies and medical providers, passing off the cost of settlements to the consumer. None of these problems are black and white and they have nuances that have to be cared for as everyone is effected. You have greedy doctors and greedy lawyers, for sure, but this to me doesn't constitute the evils of deregulation. I agree with Keynes that you need some regulation, but not the kind that Bush and Paulson are looking for. That kind of regulation is regulation that even China and Russia don't currently enforce. Any time you have an account-deficit economy, you are going to have the problems that you have today and it's a problem that was created by both sides of the aisle through kick backs, lobbying and what not. But I don't think this is a failure of capitalism and the market, I think you are seeing what happens when you allow corporate facism to rule your country instead of law and reason.
Step into any VA hospital and you can take government healthcare and stuff up a turkey for Thanksgiving.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Nov 20, 2008 16:00:12 GMT -5
I don't think I'm confusing anything. 1. I don't think the government should be our savior, but in many aspects the government is one place where people can make their voice heard. For example, much of the massive increase in health care costs were a direct result of the health care industry not keeping up with the times. Why should they? Demand is already there, and they can pass the buck off to the consumer because no business lasts if they are handing shit out for free. 2. The auto industry's problems stem directly from the fact that they didn't have to keep up with the times. People wanted their big fucking automobiles that they didn't really need, the government didn't want to increase fuel emissions standards to any acceptable level. Toyota and Honda (amongst many other companies) stepped in and the auto companies were fucked. Greed, sure. I don't care about GM, Ford, nor Chrysler, but the people of this country who buy their cars and the employees of said companies deserve better. It is the government's fault for "letting market forces take over." I think that's my main point. The government is the one place where people have a voice. They can choose to vote for whichever candidate they want. The candidates go around and talk to people and hedge their positions based on what they think will get them the vote. They need to stick to FIGHTING for those policy promises or else they get kicked out on their ass. No one expected oil prices to rise so dramatically, which caused a lot of problems for our society. It was the lack of oversight by the government that should have been pushing for progress and innovation, especially when jobs of their constituents depend on these companies. Yes, market forces will drive the economy, but what happens when the market forces get fucked up? Someone has to have the foresight when things get out of line, and it is the job of our representatives to be looking out for our best interests at all times. If fuel emissions standards were increased? If oil speculation had not been deregulated as it was during the Clinton years and again under Duby? If the financial system were not deregulated? Would we be where we are today? The greed of a few can have a huge fucking impact on the many. matt, you said you were gonna be talking in generalities a few posts above this(re 'stupid')...but then that's what continued for the next several posts. erm, a broad-as-hell rant ain't necessarily a bad thing, but c'mon. glad to se that skvor had the patience to try to rein you in just a bit... |
|
|
|
Post by skovrecky on Nov 21, 2008 11:28:32 GMT -5
Oil is not solely driven by OPEC. The United States government chose not to raise its fuel emissions standards, so it is not entirely in control of OPEC because the less reliant we are on oil the less OPEC matters. Furthermore, during the Clinton administration and again in the Bush administration deregulation occurred with respect to oil speculation/oil futures trading. All of these have an effect on what the price of gas is ultimately. Lack of regulation includes not raising fuel emissions standards to an increasingly acceptable level (which is occurring in other countries around the world and California). GM didn't innovate because they were being short-sighted, and why would they have to? Toyota, for example, had to meet the fuel emissions standards of its country, which are higher than ours, so they had no choice but to innovate. It's not like they weren't looking at their bottom line... they had more reason to. They also benefited from the American government's protectionist stance towards the oil companies (which included stifling competition during the Reagan years by only allowing so many foreign cars into the country and not raising emissions standards). Lack of regulation, and protectionist attitudes which haven't worked... ever. Competition fosters innovation. You can't be competitive in a world market when your country is sorely behind the times (once again... who has been slow to come around to global warming... the Republican Party). Health care is the result of many issues the country faces none of which I want anything to do with. I don't know how I feel about insurance companies making a profit off of whether or not someone is allowed to get an operation or not. I also don't know how I feel with the government running our health care system. I do know that John McCain's idea of a tax cut and tax hike was completely retarded. My employer would have been taxed for paying for our health care, as would I (on the small portion I pay per month). It was the equivalent of punishing companies who are actually doing some good for their employees and are running a highly succcessful business. No one has convinced me that the Republican ideas of the past are antiquated and cute. Sure, no one wants the government to run our lives... but they do need to check the power of the wealthy, which is something that I consider to be their job. We keep a check on the government by voting, and the government keeps a check on business which has more power than they do... in the end. I hope I made sense... to where a person could at least understand what I'm saying. I'm going to go point by point here and some of what I'll say has been copied from other oil information sites like Wikipedia, wtrg, and a few other places: We as a country have not raised our prices for gasoline based on our relationship with the OPEC Cartel and Saudi Arabia and this relationship goes further back than W or even Carter. Deregulation and futures is nothing new and has been used in the World Market for items that are traded outside of Oil. The rapid increase in crude prices from 1973 to 1981 would have been much less were it not for United States energy policy during the post Embargo period. The US imposed price controls on domestically produced oil in an attempt to lessen the impact of the 1973-74 price increase. The obvious result of the price controls was that U.S. consumers of crude oil paid about 50 percent more for imports than domestic production and U.S producers received less than world market price. In effect, the domestic petroleum industry was subsidizing the U.s. consumer. In the absence of price controls U.S. exploration and production would certainly have been significantly greater. Higher petroleum prices faced by consumers would have resulted in lower rates of consumption: automobiles would have had higher miles per gallon sooner, homes and commercial buildings would have been better insulated and improvements in industrial energy efficiency would have been greater than they were during this period. As a consequence, the United States would have been less dependent on imports in 1979-1980 and the price increase in response to Iranian and Iraqi supply interruptions would have been significantly less. There are other major factors contributing to the current level of prices include a weak dollar and the continued rapid growth in Asian economies and their petroleum consumption. The 2005/2008 hurricanes and U.S. refinery problems associated with the conversion from MTBE as an additive to ethanol have contributed to higher prices. All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans the Environmental Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord. The most fuel-efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel economy ratings as the most efficient Toyota Corolla. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Cobalt has the same city fuel economy and better highway fuel economy than the most efficient non-hybrid Honda Civic. A recent study by Edmunds.com found that the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact is the least expensive car to buy and operate. The domestic companies' lineup has been truck-heavy, but Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have all spent billions of dollars on pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically profitable part of the auto industry. The most fuel-efficient full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups. The problem is that the market is shrinking and that the Big 3 American Auto companies have lost consumer confidence. Deregulation and Protectionism cancel each other out in a lot of ways. It would be like trying to apply some capitalist rules in Marxism, which always fails which has been shown in example with Russia in the 80s. Also, what do you have against the wealthy? Look at Bill Gates who has given billions around the world and yet we need to watch the wealthy? Not all rich people are assholes and it is definitely not the role of the government to watch the wealthy. It is the role of the government to apply law and reason across the board for criminal activity. Until we start really investigating REAL problems like the Military Industrial Complex, the Prison Industrial Complex, the assault on our rights with that awful Patriot Act, The fact that the Federal Reserve is a private organization that is in direct violation of the sovereignty of our nation, etc, etc, we'll just keep having conversations about American reactionism to it's problems with sugar pills and placebos handed out by Congress all the way around. |
|
