Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
The train: A missed opportunity
I was experiencing train withdrawal there for awhile; after having finished Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged over Spring Break and thoroughly enjoying the one thousand plus pages dedicated to trains and railways, my system was in need of a pick-me-up.
I've always liked George Will; he and I share a lot of similar views when it comes to the issues, but I was disappointed with his opinion on trains. I get it; now is not the time to be throwing money at such an undertaking, and the governor of my home state of Wisconsin, Scott Walker (you may have heard of him,) was right in killing plans for a train that was illogical to invest in at this point in our economic history. However, that does not mean that it is not a good idea for the future.
We screwed up. Trains should have been kept around. Can you imagine the accessibility to the United States we would have now if trains were still a viable form of transportation? Also, with grumblings of how gas prices are getting high, wouldn't it be nice to keep the gas guzzler in the garage and take an efficient, greener way to work?
I see a lot of promise in trains. Not now, when the country is struggling to get out of the mess that was the recession, but sometime in the future. Obama's current slogan is "Winning the future." It's cute and optimistic, but has little substance to it now. I would love to see some mention of greener transportation, specifically trains, become a part of it.
Back in the day, greener pastures could be reached by trains. Who says they can't be in the future?
I've always liked George Will; he and I share a lot of similar views when it comes to the issues, but I was disappointed with his opinion on trains. I get it; now is not the time to be throwing money at such an undertaking, and the governor of my home state of Wisconsin, Scott Walker (you may have heard of him,) was right in killing plans for a train that was illogical to invest in at this point in our economic history. However, that does not mean that it is not a good idea for the future.
We screwed up. Trains should have been kept around. Can you imagine the accessibility to the United States we would have now if trains were still a viable form of transportation? Also, with grumblings of how gas prices are getting high, wouldn't it be nice to keep the gas guzzler in the garage and take an efficient, greener way to work?
I see a lot of promise in trains. Not now, when the country is struggling to get out of the mess that was the recession, but sometime in the future. Obama's current slogan is "Winning the future." It's cute and optimistic, but has little substance to it now. I would love to see some mention of greener transportation, specifically trains, become a part of it.
Back in the day, greener pastures could be reached by trains. Who says they can't be in the future?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Reading Break
Spring 2011 was looked forward to for two reasons. First, it was to be spent in Cabo, Mexico. Second, I finally had some free time to do some reading that didn't include PDFs or textbooks. I read two books that upon first look seem completely different; "The Social Animal" by David Brooks and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
I started with Brooks, and found his book excellent. It explored the inner workings of human beings and where they get their characteristics. It was one of the most interesting books I have ever read. It dug deeper than that, however; it dealt with why poverty exists in our society, how and why we fall in love, and even what gives us our politic ideals. He even mentioned Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" (despite this being "free" reading, I still couldn't escape every aspect of school!) I strongly recommend this to anyone interested in sociology and wanting to dig into the human psyche.
Ayn Rand came next, and I've never been so sucked into a book before. Despite being quite hefty, I found myself speeding through it, and I think a big part of why that was was because I agreed with nearly every idea Rand wove into the plot. Her small-government, free market, capitalist ideals are something I share with her, and to read a book devoted to those ideas was great. Now, I didn't agree with everything, and am not sure how I feel about Objectivism, her philosophy, but I can say she's one of the best authors I've ever read.
Brooks focused on how humans work; I could almost apply most of his ideas to the actions of the characters in Rand's classic. This speaks more to Brooks' work than Rand's, though there is no doubt of the important contribution Rand has made to literature. I find Brooks' piece to be incredibly insightful and intelligent, and a must read for anyone with a marginal interest in human nature.
I started with Brooks, and found his book excellent. It explored the inner workings of human beings and where they get their characteristics. It was one of the most interesting books I have ever read. It dug deeper than that, however; it dealt with why poverty exists in our society, how and why we fall in love, and even what gives us our politic ideals. He even mentioned Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" (despite this being "free" reading, I still couldn't escape every aspect of school!) I strongly recommend this to anyone interested in sociology and wanting to dig into the human psyche.
Ayn Rand came next, and I've never been so sucked into a book before. Despite being quite hefty, I found myself speeding through it, and I think a big part of why that was was because I agreed with nearly every idea Rand wove into the plot. Her small-government, free market, capitalist ideals are something I share with her, and to read a book devoted to those ideas was great. Now, I didn't agree with everything, and am not sure how I feel about Objectivism, her philosophy, but I can say she's one of the best authors I've ever read.
Brooks focused on how humans work; I could almost apply most of his ideas to the actions of the characters in Rand's classic. This speaks more to Brooks' work than Rand's, though there is no doubt of the important contribution Rand has made to literature. I find Brooks' piece to be incredibly insightful and intelligent, and a must read for anyone with a marginal interest in human nature.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo
Tonight I attended the presentation of the Argentinean Madres de la Plaza, where they discussed the history of the organization and it's struggle for answers. The Madres were started in the late 70s after 30,000 people were kidnapped and killed by the Argentinean government, which was at the time a military dictatorship. The Madres, wanting to know what happened to their children and demanding justice, began their protests at the Plaza de Mayo in front of the Casa Rosa, the Argentinean White House. They gathered every Thursday at 3:00 PM and protested for a half an hour, something they continue to do today. The Madres themselves experienced threats, murders, and kidnappings of their own.
In December of 1981 the Madres had the first March of Resistance in la Plaza, where they along with supporters marched for 24 hours straight. This too is a continued practice. Come 1985, an elected president was in charge and the first trials of military officers began. However, progress was halted when the president passed the Full Stop and Due Obedience Laws, which restricted rights and made it more difficult for the Madres to get information.
Finally with the presidency of Nestor Kirchner did things turn around. The Full Stop and Due Obedience Laws were found unconstitutional and annulled, and President Kirchner was the first president to acknowledge and fight for the Madres. April 30th was named Day of Dignity for the Madres, as it was the first day back in 1977 that they marched upon la Plaza.
When I traveled to Buenos Aires and visited the Plaza I remember the feeling of raw emotion while watching the Madres continue their protest of over 30 years. The pain, anger, sadness, and desire to know what happened to their children is evident, and surely a wound upon the country's history that may never heal.
In December of 1981 the Madres had the first March of Resistance in la Plaza, where they along with supporters marched for 24 hours straight. This too is a continued practice. Come 1985, an elected president was in charge and the first trials of military officers began. However, progress was halted when the president passed the Full Stop and Due Obedience Laws, which restricted rights and made it more difficult for the Madres to get information.
Finally with the presidency of Nestor Kirchner did things turn around. The Full Stop and Due Obedience Laws were found unconstitutional and annulled, and President Kirchner was the first president to acknowledge and fight for the Madres. April 30th was named Day of Dignity for the Madres, as it was the first day back in 1977 that they marched upon la Plaza.
When I traveled to Buenos Aires and visited the Plaza I remember the feeling of raw emotion while watching the Madres continue their protest of over 30 years. The pain, anger, sadness, and desire to know what happened to their children is evident, and surely a wound upon the country's history that may never heal.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
National Identity: What's it good for?
While reading Steven Durlauf's response to Putnam's "Bowling Alone" entitled, "Bowling Alone: a review essay" (believe me, the contents of the paper are much more original than the title,) I came across an interesting idea I hadn't considered while reading Putnam. Durlauf has issues with Putnam's discussion of social capital, particularly the two different types, bonding and bridging. Durlauf believes that there are aspects of our lives which do both, and national identity is just that.
National identity can bridge loyalties between different ethnic groups while bonding citizens in ways that may increase hostility towards foreigners. Well, that was Durlauf's opinion at least. I don't know about the whole "hostility" towards foreigners. Maybe it's just my idealism peaking out through my hard, cynical outer-shell, but as a country built by foreigners, I would hope for some more welcoming attitudes.
That's not the case (that little spark of idealism faded quickly.) Attitudes towards the Hispanic and Muslim communities have gotten increasingly negative this past decade. Anti-Islam sentiments seemed to reach a boiling point last week, when Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King-R began hearings on what he deemed the "Radicalization of the American Muslim Community." Reading this article: King Hearings & Anti-Muslim Hate: A Citizen's Call to Action, makes it hard for me to believe this is really the type of thing Durlauf would refer to as a type of social capital worth believing in, or even acknowledging as social capital.
National identity can bridge loyalties between different ethnic groups while bonding citizens in ways that may increase hostility towards foreigners. Well, that was Durlauf's opinion at least. I don't know about the whole "hostility" towards foreigners. Maybe it's just my idealism peaking out through my hard, cynical outer-shell, but as a country built by foreigners, I would hope for some more welcoming attitudes.
That's not the case (that little spark of idealism faded quickly.) Attitudes towards the Hispanic and Muslim communities have gotten increasingly negative this past decade. Anti-Islam sentiments seemed to reach a boiling point last week, when Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King-R began hearings on what he deemed the "Radicalization of the American Muslim Community." Reading this article: King Hearings & Anti-Muslim Hate: A Citizen's Call to Action, makes it hard for me to believe this is really the type of thing Durlauf would refer to as a type of social capital worth believing in, or even acknowledging as social capital.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Loss of Social Capital
Robert Putnam was right; America's social capital is evaporating at an intense rate. I generally agree with what he sees as the causers for this occurring, such as women entering the labor force, the "re-potting" hypothesis, the transformation of the American family, and the influence technology has upon our lives. I wonder if perhaps he left out an important causer; the major influence of corporations on today's politics.
American citizens didn't have powerful, multi-national corporations acting as master puppeteers on Capitol Hill. Corporate influence in modern-day America is vast and free-spending. After the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that spending by corporations in elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, the influence, and spending, of corporations has exploded. This is especially evident in the 2010 mid-terms, where spending records were shattered. Check this link: Campaign cash: What Interest Groups Spent on 2010 Midterm Elections to see who spent what and where the money went.
The typical American citizen does not have billions of dollars to invest in political campaigns. The typical American cannot pay for commercials advocating their views, or send a lobbyist to Washington to schmooze with politicians to forward types of legislation they like. The social capital of the typical American has been usurped by corporations, and reversal does not look close.
American citizens didn't have powerful, multi-national corporations acting as master puppeteers on Capitol Hill. Corporate influence in modern-day America is vast and free-spending. After the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that spending by corporations in elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, the influence, and spending, of corporations has exploded. This is especially evident in the 2010 mid-terms, where spending records were shattered. Check this link: Campaign cash: What Interest Groups Spent on 2010 Midterm Elections to see who spent what and where the money went.
The typical American citizen does not have billions of dollars to invest in political campaigns. The typical American cannot pay for commercials advocating their views, or send a lobbyist to Washington to schmooze with politicians to forward types of legislation they like. The social capital of the typical American has been usurped by corporations, and reversal does not look close.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Social Truce in 2012? Doesn't look like it.
The economy. Jobs. The unemployment rate. These are the issues running through the mouths of every politician from our state houses to D.C. Republican presidential candidates have declared a "truce" on social issues, instead focusing on something they could convince the American public they could execute better than their opponents. But one Republican in particular seems to be unwilling to acknowledge the agreement.
Mike Huckabee, a favorite of social conservatives, is livening his base by invoking his pastoral past in condemning a number of social issues that he finds just a little too liberal for his liking. Obama's recent announcement that the federal government will no longer defend the unconstitutional DOMA unleashed a one-man conservative firestorm. His recent comments on a Fox News program showcased his strong distaste for the homosexual lifestyle. He even felt the need to go after recent Academy Award winner Natalie Portman, who had the audacity to get pregnant out of wedlock.
If Huckabee has any true aspirations to reach the office of the presidency he needs to remember that he is no longer behind the pulpit of his church. He is doing a different kind of preaching to a different crowd of people, and if he wants to be relevant to the American people as a whole, he needs to start adopting similar views.
Mike Huckabee, a favorite of social conservatives, is livening his base by invoking his pastoral past in condemning a number of social issues that he finds just a little too liberal for his liking. Obama's recent announcement that the federal government will no longer defend the unconstitutional DOMA unleashed a one-man conservative firestorm. His recent comments on a Fox News program showcased his strong distaste for the homosexual lifestyle. He even felt the need to go after recent Academy Award winner Natalie Portman, who had the audacity to get pregnant out of wedlock.
If Huckabee has any true aspirations to reach the office of the presidency he needs to remember that he is no longer behind the pulpit of his church. He is doing a different kind of preaching to a different crowd of people, and if he wants to be relevant to the American people as a whole, he needs to start adopting similar views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)