Am I Reading This Right?

Ok, I'm no economist. I don't understand this bailout thing. I know the experts say it's necessary. To me it sounds like we're saving greedy bankers (I found it interesting to hear this morning that the banks are lobbying for the bill to pass but against the provision that limits how much bank CEOs can make.... interesting).

I read Senator Obama's remarks here and thought, "Did he just say what I thought he said?" Because it sure sounded like he said screw the environment, the working class, the poor, the elderly, veterans, etc. We need to hold off on those proposals to save greedy bankers. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but a vote for Nader is sounding better than ever.

Communication 101

I've realized recently what it is that makes for a productive conversation. You need a few things:

1) A point of view
2) Another person with a point of view (it can be the same or different from your own)
3) A sense of humor
4) The desire to learn - (ATTN: that means it's not about proving the other person wrong)

I'm mainly drawing on a recent "conversation" with my brother-in-law.

We do not talk politics or religion with Shelly's family because we are in disagreement with them on almost any issue you can imagine. The only time I even try is when it is clear that we are all in agreement. It's just not worth it otherwise. Her mom is terrified of conflict (and I think the story that follows kind of explains why) and so as soon as any disagreement over anything occurs she basically ends the conversation (even when she hasn't been part of it).

Well, the other day we were with her family and the subject of Stanton dropping the 2.0 requirement came up (if you're unfamiliar with this, ask and I'll explain in the comments). I stayed out of it because it turns out I feel like the requirements can be equated to soft racism, and her brother tends to not believe racism exists. Which is funny, since he is the second most racist person I know. Anyway, I let the conversation continue as long as I could without interrupting. I was pretending to read e-mail on my phone.

Finally, I heard her brother say, "The problem honestly isn't with the school system in general. It's the black culture. That's what is ruining those schools on the north and west sides of town."

Excuse me?

I said, "Josh, clearly those neighborhoods have been neglected for years by our city, and we should be really trying to make those schools the very best in order to break the cycles and structures that are in play. I mean, everyone should have a quality education. Not just those in the 'good' parts of town."

He said, "It's not the schools, it's the culture."

I said, "And school is part of culture. It may even be the primary place we learn culture."

Now, up to this point it was clear he was irritated at my liberal notion that everyone should have access to quality education. I know, I'm a commie. But, it hadn't quite seemed to break any of my above rules.

Until he shouted, "You just want the government to raise kids. Don't you see you're asking government to do way more than it's meant to?"

Talking points are not the way forward in a conversation. Shouting me down is not the way forward. Treating me like I'm stupid and naive is not the way forward. I tuned out because it was no longer about learning anything. It was about being right. And I really don't care how right you think you are (or how right I think I am, for that matter). If we are to move forward as a society, the conversation has to become about how to move forward as a society, not who has the right ideology.

Facebook Status Political War

I hope readership of this blog (by readership I mean mostly those of us who write from time to time) hasn't completely fallen off at this point. I know I'm partly to blame for nothing going on here lately, but I finally have something somewhat interesting to write about. Let's try to get back to writing more regularly. I really enjoy reading what you folks have to say.

I noticed something new during the DNC last week. Maybe if I hadn't been glued to the tv the entire week, political junkie that I am, I wouldn't have noticed it quite as much. What I realized was that people are now using their Facebook status to spew political rhetoric.

I've been somewhat guilty, but mine have been less rhetoric, more feeling. For example, mine said, "Quinn wishes he was at Mile High" on the night of Obama's acceptance speech. Others (I have to say, mostly, but not only, conservatives) were much more involved. One guy that Rachelle, Meg, and I went to high school with said "Rhett wonders if Obama supporters realize socialism has been tried before. It failed." Reducing a politicians position to socialism simply because he believes markets exists for people and not the other way around. Some weren't ideological, they were attempts at insult, like another guy from high school said, "Andrew wishes Obama would come up with something besides that dumb as [sic] 'yes we can' slogan." I guess the irony was lost on him in that in identifying something as dumb ass, he actually misspelled the word.

Anyway, I don't know what I think about this. I feel like already the general population is so dumb when it comes to politics, and I'm not talking about ideology. I know some very intelligent conservatives. I just mean that the general population are uneducated. Facebook status as a medium for political discourse will not help this. I actually question whether blogs even can.

Part of me wants to fire back at these people. Inform them that they misspelled dumb ass, tell them they clearly don't understand the differences between the Marxist tyranny of the USSR and the socialist policies of the UK or Sweden. However, I just don't think it's worth it. If someone is willing to bring the level of the conversation down that far, I see no point in stooping to try to correct their misguided feelings.

McOil

In this week's Talk of the Town section of the New Yorker, Elizabeth Kolbert writes

Clearly, the only way to change America's consumption habits is by making those habits more expensive.
McCain, in his straight-talking days, acknowledged as much. In 2003, he broke with the Bush Administration and co-introduced legislation to reduce carbon admissions, by, in effect, imposing a price on them. That same year, over strong White House opposition, he brought the bill to the Senate floor. (It was defeated, by a vote of fifty-five to forty-three.) In an interview with this magazine, he said... "I think it's a dramatic example of the influence of special interests here in the Congress... It's a combination of the utilities and the coal companies and automobile manufacturers- an unholy alliance of special interests that have made it a top priority to prevent any action from being taken."

But now, he is this guy.

And people wonder why no one votes in our country.