Calla's Seventy-Seventh Post

What is one to do with a $481.00 non-refundable ticket that one doesn't wish to use? I suppose it could be transferred to another time and place, costing $180.00 in the process. I could take a $301.00 trip on the $481.00 ticket and it could all be fine and dandy.

And I would consider it too if it weren't for Callista. I don't want to miss her.

There is a logic somewhere in this madness; and I'm the one who has it, despite accusations that I am unreasonable and wrong.

And it may be unreasonable from one perspective. We are all, after all, subject to our positionality. And if it is unreasonable, that does not make it wrong. You can continue to 'reasonably' destroy the planet while I remain stubbornly unreasonable until I contribute to a definitive difference in the world around me. Those who aspire only to what is reasonable seldom enact positive social change.

Gandhi was unreasonable.

I am sick of being held hostage by the dominant social norm. Hegemony, I will not be your submissive.

Though I will be labeled "selfish," "bitchy," "childish," "immature," and I'm sure the list goes on, how am I more of these than those on the other side? I am not. I appear so because the common discourse is not on my side.

Baltimore public schools: Meatless Mondays. Lou Dobbs says it’s a political storm in the making. Glenn Beck says its indoctrination. Why are the "Got Milk?" posters decorating our school cafeterias not accused of the same?

Oh right, dominant social discourses . . . Meat is not murder. Milk is not theft. And these products will not cause diabetes, cancer, obesity, high blood pressure, colon problems, global warming, water shortages, world hunger, deforestation, pollution, community destruction, avian flu, swine flue, mad cow disease, E. Coli, workers' rights violations, exploitation, or death. (by the way: they already do.)

I do not want to fly across the country. Sitting on a plane for over 5 hours is not a pleasant experience. I do not want to be called "psycho" or "a brat." (I will be.) I do not want to spend my days off of work and school away from my home and my things and my cats. I do not want to have a screaming and crying match with the people I love. (I will.) I do not want this headache, these stomach cramps, these shaky hands or nervous thoughts that have been following me since Sunday night. I do not want to fly across the country.

And if I don't? Others will have leverage to refuse to do the same come January. And if I do and we resort to fighting? I will be the one at fault by hegemony's law.

Some background information: Thanksgiving is on my birthday. I prefer not to be around symbols of the fallen world on any given day. But I assumed birthdays had leveraging power. (BTW, I was wrong. People are more sentimental about Thanksgiving than Birthdays. You may need that information in the future.) I asked if we could not have a turkey, but could have other items made with animal products. This was shot down. I asked if we could have a turkey and no other items contributing to the problems outlined in a ramble above. This was also shot down, despite my offer to do the cooking. Some people were worried some other people wouldn't come unless they could indulge all their destructive sentiments. And if I am threatening not to come, that is crazy. That is unreasonable. That is unfair.

And that is your background information. This is the last time I will be using my Birthday to ask for a gift.

I will also be a brat when I refuse their birthday cake or gifts that someone may have bothered to get me. (I will accept something from Callista. Something from Chris. Everyone else needs to stop kidding themselves . . . If they ever were.)

If this wretched holiday of gluttony and greed had not fallen on the marginally less wretched (though much more vain) holiday of my birth, I never would have thought to ask for such an apparently unreasonable gift.

I think my family is harder than most. I say this not only because I've had my fair share of stepmoms, so the rules are always changing, but also because I know other people's families. I know a couple that is getting married this weekend, and they are cooking an all vegan Thanksgiving for their families on Thanksgiving. (This is something I didn't even consider asking. I know people hold deadly sentiment too dear.) I know people who have gotten family members to go completely vegan for a week or a month in honor of birthdays. My husband's extended family has gone to vegetarian restaurants to celebrate birthdays that weren't even ours just to be respectful. People have suggested I offer to cook the meal if I want it to be vegan, as if this would solve the problem . . . Because to reasonable people, it would. To a normal family, having all the sides vegan would not be a big deal . . . especially if Thanksgiving fell on a vegan's birthday and that vegan offered to do all the cooking.

(This is what is unreasonable: I wanted to spend the day doing something I don't enjoy and have that be my sole birthday present.)

Gluttony, gluttony--the deadly sin that kills (see rambling list above if you would like to know how.)

I hate this situation. I don't want to even fly across the country. This would not make things better. People would still say, "Where's Calla?" and the response would still be, said in a snarky tone, "Oh, she refused to come because we didn't make the side dishes vegan." (For the record, I didn't ask you to make the side dishes vegan. I asked you to let ME make the side dishes vegan.) So, this would not make things better in terms of call and response . . . but at least I wouldn't have to see these people. No one would come by my sister's house before or after the meal, see me there, and lecture me about how stubborn and bitchy I am.

I am stubborn. I am not bitchy. I am quite the opposite of bitchy. I care too damn much. I care about animals, and people, and the environment, and this makes me unable to take part in the dominant social discourse. I won't sit down at your selfish table of gluttonous lies. "

"Thanksgiving." Can you imagine giving thanks for global warming? For an unsustainable use of land and water? For cancer? For diabetes? For theft? I can't. And I won't. And I won't be a part of this dinner. And I will bear the brunt of, "Stop acting crazy and just COME" because I have a $481.00 ticket and a 5 year old to visit.

These nerves and shakes and pains are making it hard to get through the days. And I don't want them anymore. And I don't want to fly across the country and watch others soak up sentiment.



Too upset to find a picture.

Post no. 14

Mob mentality is a strange feature of humanity–– an odd collective of raw human emotion, which I am apparently currently experiencing in part. I'm not talking about this strange tea party phenomenon where people who enjoy wasting a lot of money on tea pollute waterways to symbolically protest wasteful government spending. I don't really get that one. . . at all. It doesn't seem to prove a point, or demonstrate much. And these people don't know what 'representation' means if they think they are being taxed without it. . . Unless they come from D.C.–– then that just sucks.

No, I am writing about the protests that have been raging at The New School as of late. Now, there has been, shall we say, tension, between various groups at the New School since last semester. And by "groups of the New School" I pretty much mean group a: Bob Kerrey and his henchmen vs. group b: everyone else. There was a 95% vote of no confidence by all New School staff (part-time, full-time, tenured alike) in Bob Kerrey back in December, and, around the same time, over 100 students occupied a building demanding Kerrey resign. I don't feel like getting into the details. Basically, we've had a billion and a half provosts since Kerrey's time here. When the last one left he appointed HIMSELF provost, effectively putting all the university's power in the business side of the university and none in the academia. This, on top of losing important student space, was too much. It was covered by the Times and what not. Just Google it, or Wikipedia it.

Well, so, you see, what had happened after these protests was Kerrey started operating in a MORE transparent way. He un-appointed himself as provost. He put staff on the search committee for a new one. He promised the students some more space. He started sending out a billion and a half e-mails about our financials, etc. etc. But, he didn't resign. And this is what the students wanted. So, people are still freaking the frak out.

I didn't really get it at first. (Honestly, I'm still not sure I do.) It is clear Kerrey's contract will not be renewed in 2010. Let's all just chill and let this thing run its course. I guess you could say, after the December vote and protests, I became complacent with the mediocrity of the situation. "Eh, it could be better, it could be worse, so let's just let this all sizzle out quietly" typa attitude. So, I didn't understand the continuation of fuss.

That's why, on Good Friday, when 22 students were arrested, most for breaking and entering into a building, I kinda didn't support them AT ALL. I thought that was a completely ineffective and immature way to go about. . . I wasn't really sure what it was all about. (Honestly, I'm still not sure I do.) [also, that sentence has just gotta end in a preposition 'cause otherwise it sounds silly.] I guess they are protesting the fact that Kerrey has not resigned. I found this an absurd reason to break into a building.

So, I then saw a video of a friend of mine being beat up by the cops. Just flat out pushed on the ground and jumped on by four cops for "obstructing." No, for real, he did not break into the building. He was chilling outside intelligently not risking (or so he presumed) the master's degree he's about to (maybe, hopefully, one can pray) earn in five weeks. He yelled "shame on you" at the police for being violent to another protester. Well, for that he was pushed to the ground and brutally beaten by four officers. I've seen him since then and he's all bruised up. He is charged with "obstructing" and "resisting arrest." This has nothing to do with the New School. He did not break any laws besides 'obstructing' and, for real, if a cop can't do his job while someone is talking to them, the NYPD needs to hire better cops. I don't see how talking to a cop obstructs anything. Furthermore, you can't exactly resist arrest if you are pushed to the ground and attacked. So, my point is, he is suspended from school, and for what? For speaking his mind to a police officer in support of fellow students. This is no reason to get suspended. And pretty much it makes me not support the administration.

Well, I was still iffy on the whole thing, leaning towards "I agree with these students but not with their methods." It seemed a bit extreme to break into a building even if the administration of our school is a sham. The first protest was successful, peaceful, and all-well-and-dandy. This more recent one seemed ineffective, unorganized, and not-oh-so-very-well-and-dandy.

HOWEVER, I am slowly being sucked into the excitement. Today I again ran into said friend who was recently beaten by the cops. I didn't even recognize him cause he was all celebrity like with sunglasses and hat. (haha) They had an emergency assembly today called by the Lang Dean, followed by a march to protest police brutality and the works. So Tabby and I were discussing the situation again, and it is just flat out getting exciting. A Teacher's Assistant he had last semester is in one of the two student groups organizing these protests. She is part of New School in Exile. The other group is The Radical Student Union. (And I am discovering the latter is the ridiculous faction and the former may actually be filled with intelligent human beings.) We watched a video (the second one) of her speaking on Monday and Tabby got excited that she was distinguishing between the protesters inside the building and those outside instead of making a blanket statement that they are all terrorists or all godsends. Also she brought up a great point about our University having some protest policy where they must be pre-approved. .. uh, that's not a protest. Tabby also said he liked her a lot.

Well, THEN I found out Reverend Billy (who I am supporting for Mayor! HURRAH HURRAY!) spoke briefly at tonight's rally. He wasn't really planning on doing that. He had to be at NYU for some Mayor thing-a-ma-bob or NYU protest or something, but the New School protesters marched over to Washington Square Park. ANYway, Rev. Billy excites me. And this is when I felt the mob mentality kick in. I was all Reverend Billy is right, "He criticized what he sees as the corporate structure of the American higher education system." Well, of course there is a problem with the corporate structure of U.S. America's higher education system! So, then I feel myself wanting to blindly support these protesters because I like REVEREND BILLY'S point. . . Not cause I know what the protesters' point exactly is. (I think it has shifted into some weird collage about having the right to protest and not liking police brutality. . . idunno.) But I'm telling you, I was all "see Rev. Billy supports us! . . . I mean them. . . I mean. . . um. . . he said something intelligent about the higher education system that may or may not be related to the protests. . . "

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting moment of mob mentality. And I like the feeling of it and don't want to let it go, even though I know that would be the conscionable thing to do. Instead I wanna be part of this movement that may tear apart my University just because it's fun when a celebrity gets involved; and movements are sometimes cool; and hey, I need some excitement in my life. Strange, huh? I mean, mob mentality is a strange result of too much team spirit, for lack of better term. You know what I mean though, all these people feel like they're on one side against something else. . . And that can breed hostility towards that something else. And I've never particularly liked team spirit, or hometown pride, or patriotism, or any of that business. So, this is an odd moment in my life. What does it say about me? Perhaps I HAVE become too emotional without enough reason. . . but then I wouldn't be reasoning this out, now would I? So, idunno. I guess it is just something to analyze and resist.


A CUTE puppy and me two summers ago. I really need a hair cut! It needs to look like that again.

Calla's Sixty-Third Post

I am writing this sentence to remind you: I don't edit this stuff. I just ramble. It's not cause I'm dumb. Its cause blogs aren't homework. They're a place to rant. I ranted A LOT below this. Consider yourself warned.

So, ignorant people ANNOY me. We were talking about Opportunity NYC in class today, ya know the Conditional Cash Transfer program currently in it's pilot stages in New York City, and my goodness me are there social conservatives at my school!! Now, Opportunity NYC has a lot a lot of problems. It can be criticized from both the left and the right, and I will criticize it from the left momentarily, but I did not expect to hear all these people criticizing it from the right in my "Making a Difference" class. Why these people went to The New School is pretty much beyond me. And why they were let in is also beyond me. But, Tabby said you have to let diverse people into a school and what not, right? And I understand the merits of diversity in institutions; I do. Especially if it is an undergraduate institution. But I think when someone is in a graduate program at the NEW SCHOOL should be somewhat more progressive. (seriously, if you don't believe me, look it up.) I mean, the stupid class I was in "Making a Difference: Global, Organizational and Individual Perspective on Social Change" was conceived as a college-wide REQUIRED class so we could all be indoctrinated on how important a progressive ideology is. (The creators of the class, of course, won't admit this. But sit in on one class and you will know it is true.) So, my point is: why are all these students with adverse ideologies accepted into a school with a mission to, and I quote FROM the New School's website, " prepare and inspire its 9,400 undergraduate and graduate students to bring actual, positive change to the world." Private Universities ARE nonprofits. They exist to serve a specific purpose. The New School's purpose is clearly stated. It seems like Mission Drift to let all these social conservatives into the University.

Well, perhaps I might maybe explain what happened. So, Opportunity NYC is SUPPOSEDLY based on Mexico's Oportunidades (formerly Progresa). These are programs which offer money, not subsidies or vouchers–– actual money, to those living in poverty as long as the program participants fulfill given obligations. Well, I'm not going to get into the merits of Oportunidades, because the program is highly successful; I mean 1 in every 4 Mexicans benefiting from it highly successful. Also, from the 2 book chapters and 3 articles I read about it, I don't see anything wrong with it. Seriously, it's not controversial. No one in my class even talked about it. Opportunity NYC is the controversial one.

I first saw mention of Opportunity NYC when CNN did it's whole "Black in America" thing and those 4th graders were getting paid to do well on tests. So, the program requires parents to stay employed, school-aged kids to go to school and DO WELL in it, + the normal things like go to the doctors regularly, go to Parent-Teacher conferences etc. Probably, if you have the least bit critical mind, you are seeing a problem with this program, because right or left, there ARE PROBLEMS. Well, I sit here, and I think about how horrendous it is that we are putting blame on children for not doing well in school instead of on the failing school systems, and how the worst possible thing a person could do is raise the stakes even MORE when it comes to tests. (I think there might be a post about this somewhere, but I don't know.) Basically, high stakes testing is a total joke already. The tests are written with an unintended bias towards white middle-class students. The tests don't prove that children can learn, but that they can memorize. The culture they create in classrooms–– one of route memorization, the banking system, irrelevant subject matter, stressful work environment, isolated subjects, lack of creativity, and no critical thinking skills–– is both detrimental and dehumanizing. Furthermore, it has been shown through studies done by Friere and the likes, that tests don't actually test aptitude. Your SAT scores don't actually reflect how well you will do in college. Oh, and the requiring parents to keep a job to get paid, that is counterintuitive. If a parent loses his/her job through no fault of his/her own and can't find another one because of a job shortage like the one we are currently experiencing, well, the last thing that individual needs is the Opportunity NYC money to stop flowing. Am I right? So, this is what I thought we would find objectionable in Mayor Bloomberg's plan. That and I thought perhaps some well-meaning individuals would find it condescending to imply poor people need extra motivation to do the right thing while middle class or wealthy people don't. (I don't think that is at all what is implied by the program, but ya know, overly-sensitive, liberal, straight, white, males who are always trying to overcompensate for their undue privilege by acting offended for everyone else's sake probably would say that.) But, much to my shock and gag-reflex people were all:

I think it's wrong to pay people for what they should be doing anyway.

Parents are supposed to be invested in their children's life without getting paid.

I understand Mayor Bloomberg is trying to force all these parents to be good parents, but you can't make people do what's right.

I don't personally understand the culture of poor people not taking care of their kids properly because I'm white and from a farm and have always had opportunities and a steady career, but since that's the way it is, I think it's good that this program is in place to inspire people to care for their children someway. (I KID YOU NOT THAT IS A SUMMARY OF WHAT SOMEONE SAID. . . he was a white male, but I'm not sure if he's straight.)

I think it skews people's values. People need to value education for what it is, not because it pays. What are these kids gonna do when they graduate and aren't getting paid to go to college, are they going to go?

Since in poor communities education isn't valued properly, I think it works to put a monetary value on it, so individuals can tell what it's worth.

Alright, two of those weren't even criticisms, they were praises of the program but for DISGUISTING reasons. THESE PEOPLE ARE MORONS. Here is what I gathered their opinions are: poor people don't care about their kids, we must pay poor people to do the 'proper' thing, poor people don't understand the value of education. Alright bitches, I bet all of them can understand the value of education better than you can because you probably took it for granted your whole life where these parents, who are struggling to pay bills, pay the rent, keep their kids out of trouble, WISH they could have what you have so that life WOULDN'T be so hard. Not to generalize because I'm sure some people in my class are from low income families and communities, but, my gods, these people in class blabbing about how poor people don't know the value of education most likely don't understand the value of it themselves because they've never had to struggle without one. Furthermore, how DARE they accuse parents of not wanting what's best for their children because they don't have time to go to a frakken PTA meeting. I mean really, if you are a single parent working multiple jobs and you have the choice between going to work to make money so your electricity doesn't get cut off or going to a Parent-Teacher conference, well, I guess that's up to you what you would do. But I'm damn sure gonna make sure my babies have electricity and running water and a safe place to come home to before I'm gonna sit down and chat with their teachers. My babies can tell me themselves how they're doing in school, and we won't end up in transitional housing or a homeless shelter, thank-you-very-much! But, if you pay me $25 for that hour of my time, hell ya! That's more than I'd be making at work anyway, and yes I'd gladly be MORE involved in my child's life if I had the means to do so. . . And, maybe I already WAS making every effort and going to these meetings, but at the cost of less nutritional meals 'cause all I could afford after missing that hour of work was HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP filled food. Oh and now we all have diabetes.

OK, you get my point. These people are not ok with me. I don't know outa what world they fell, but they need to go back. . . NOW. And Tabby and I were talking about how probably they are not Republican. Probably they do not consider themselves conservative. Maybe they consider themselves fiscally or socially liberal. BUT they are, in part, social conservatives. You saw all that "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" bullshit, did you not? Somehow, because these parents don't have time to go to conferences, don't have the resources to make annual doctor's appointments, they are bad parents? They don't CARE about their kids? bullshit. You know its bullshit. We aren't necessarily talking about abusive crack-head parents, and even if we were I bet I could make a case for them caring about their kids anyway. We are talking about people who grew up in the ghetto, and who are raising their kids in the ghetto, who have no hope of getting out of the ghetto because that's where their moms were raised too. We are talking about multi-generational poverty brought on by unfortunate and despicable social problems and failed policy solutions. Living in poverty does not make you a bad parent. It makes you damn busy. PLUS, a lot of these parents probably already WERE doing these things. It's not like Bloomberg targeted people who weren't doing these things. He targeted poverty-stricken families who may or may not have been doing these things, but why should that matter? Why NOT redistribute the wealth in their favor? They are working harder than all those damn morons in the financial sector who make millions and billions.

BTW, my parents DID have the means and time to take me to the doctor's and dentist and they still didn't. I have been to the dentist 3 times in my life and once was after I had already graduated high school. This has nothing to do with not caring. It has to do with certain a level of organization that many people lack. So yes, I understand most children are covered by health insurance, but if people don't have basic organizational skills, and why would they necessarily have ever gained these skills if they themselves did not have the opportunity to finish school and balance college and a job at the same time (Most people who do finish school and finish college still come out lacking in the organizational department), why should they be expected to remember to make a doctor's appointment when they are worried about how they're gonna get their next meal? THEN, how should they find the time to get their child to it? I am so rambly. I am repeating myself a lot, I know. It just really really bothered me.

Love,
Calla and her Kitties. (MEOW)


(I need to take more pictures)

Calla's Fifteenth Post

So, this is my newest post. I don't know what it will say!!! It is maybe a surprise for both you and I. That was a little rhyme, that last sentence was. I'm sleepyface. Are you sleepyface? I'm watching John McCain and Larry King chit-chat. McCain really needs to drop that town hall meeting thing. I love Larry King. He's so chill. He'll let anyone come on and say whatever s/he wants. He just sits back and asks simple questions every now and again to spur the conversation forward. And he's so short with people if they get off track– to the point and always dry. I love it. I can't stand the anchors with these cheesey personalities or fake passions. (Lou Dobbs and his stupid smile!! AH I HATE IT!) Basically, Larry King just seems like a nice, but no bullshit, kinda guy. I like him. I would like to be interviewed by Larry King. . . I think I need to either be famous or do something important first.

My fifth grade teacher thought that I would one day be President of this grand ol' country. (That would be important AND make me famous) However, there are a few problems with that assumption. (1) I am far too nutty and far too left. For example, I am in love with Congressman Dennis Kucinich. . . I would never be President for the same reasons he will never be President. We don't understand the importance of compromising on ANY position. We stick to our guns about things other people think aren't even worth while. (Like family farms and animal rights) So, you see, I would only be able to gain a small constituency like my man Kucinich has. (2) I don't want to run the country because I'm not in love with it like all those other politicians are. (Here is where Kucinich and I differ greatly. . . This is the reason he is a congressman and I could probably not even get elected by that many people.) No, so, basically, what I mean is, I don't want to have to walk around talking about how U.S. America is the greatest place on earth and I don't want to wear a big cheesy flag pin like Govenor Palin. (3) I HAVE NO DESIRE TO LIVE IN D.C. I just don't. First off, there is taxation without representation there! Isn't that why the Revolutionaries freaked out on England in the first place? So yeah, I would not feel right running the country from a place that is, in all reality, underrepresented- the contradiction and irony would be too much for me to take. Also, the school system is so failing and I plan on adopting kids and I also plan on sending my kids to public schools. Rich people canNOT keep sending their kids to private/religious schools because that is why there is no pressure to FIX the public school system. Nonetheless, I am not uprooting my hypothetical children out of their semi-failing NYC public school to bring them to a big-time-failing D.C. public school. . . That's just not nice. Um, why else don't I want to live in D.C.? Because I like it HERE!

So, that is what I have to say for the day: I will never be your Presdient (and aren't you relieved!) However, I do enjoy being opinionated and freaking out about politics, so probably one day I will be on a community board. That will be fun. And maybe I can get elected to the board because my community is liberalweird like I am, and that is one reason I like it where I am. (Is that bad? I should be somewhere where I can make a difference?) I can still make a difference. EVERY COMMUNITY NEEDS WORK.

The End for today.

Love, Calla and meow meow meow faces!

Post no. 4

OK, a week before the election I've decided to offer you my ultra-post debate analysis.

Initial (and sarcastic) reaction: Tell me why Senator John McCain hates the United States of America . . . He must, because he clearly wasn't wearing a flag pin during the last debate. (Though Palin's pin is probably big enough for the both of them. - She would've been a great waitress at that place Jennifer Aniston worked in the movie Office Space, right? Flare and what not.) So, let's take this debate one point at a time so that you can understand my opinions and why I have those opinions without any questions.

First Question: What the frak are you going to do about this financial frak-up!?

John McCain seems to want to buy everyone a house. . . at least, if you defaulted on your mortgage he would like to buy you a house. . . (This is $300-billion of his plan. . . what the rest is, he didn't care to mention.) And, McCain thinks he knows the criticism of this plan. It's not fair to the people who didn't frak up their mortgages. Ok, maybe that is a criticism, but frankly, that's not a compassionate complaint. If you could afford not to mess up your mortgage you don't NEED his help. So there.

BUT, I still have criticism. (Why wouldn't I? I'm an opinionated person.) My problem is that the Republicans are still obsessed with the market even though it has clearly failed, even though there has always been govt. subsidies for various businesses (ie: the railroads when they first got built) that prove laissez-faire capitalism has never been a true tenant of this country, and even though for all their trickle-down-effect ramble the gap b/w rich and poor b/w haves and haves nots is growing not shrinking. (See Paper: One for further details.) So, what is my criticism? WHY ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE THE BANK SO MUCH MONEY!? It's like food stamps or section 8 housing, the only reason these are supported by Republicans is because they put money right back into the private sector allowing all of this pretend laissez-fair capitalism to continue. Tell me why food stamps, which until recently only BIG BUSINESSES (sorry farmers or mom-and-pop stores) could accept, were the best idea for helping the working-class? These were just subsidies that helped the wealthy grocery stores more than anything else. And that's how I feel about McCain's housing plan too. . .

Also, what else is he going to do?

Now Senator Barack Obama, I give him props big time for wanting to give tax credits to companies providing jobs within the U.S. That pretty much spits in the face of the Republican notion that giving tax breaks to companies is good for our economy because it provides jobs. . . Blue collar jobs and now high-tech jobs are being outsourced, and you can no longer even pretend this isn't true. So, yes, give incentives to companies to locate here IF they actually provide jobs here! Point Obama

Where Obama loses me is his 98% of small businesses make less than $250,000 a year so they'll be fine with his tax break plan. Additionally, he said that he wants to give these companies additional tax breaks. I'm unclear. . . ALL small businesses get these additional tax breaks, or just those 98%? Even if it is for all of them, are the tax breaks enough to make up for the fact that they are making > $250,000 annually. Basically, I'm worried that 2% of mom and pop stores will fall through the cracks.

McCain also babbled about Joe the Plumber and whonot. . . And freaked out 'cause Obama told Joe that he would spread the wealth around. . . I know we are a capitalistic society, but much of the Republican base is supposedly Christian. . . And the base has people of the Christian persuasion that believe the bible is the inerrant word of God. . . um. . .

A stranger ran up, and kneeling before him, asked, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to win eternal life?' Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: "Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not give false evidence; do not fraud; honour your father and your mother."' 'But teacher,' he replied, 'I have kept all these since I was a boy.' As Jesus looked at him his heart warmed to him. 'One thing you lack,' he said. 'Go, sell everything you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come and follow me.'
-Mark 10: 17-21

Then he said to his host, 'When you are having guests for lunch or supper, do not invite your friends, your brothers or other relations, or your rich neighbours; they will only ask you back again and so you will be repaid. But when you give a party, ask the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. That is the way to find happiness, because they have no means of repaying you. You will be repaid on the day when the righteous rise from the dead.'
- Luke 14: 12-14

All the believers agreed to hold everything in common: they began to sell their property and possessions and distribute to everyone according to his need.
-Acts 2: 44-45

The whole company of believers was united in heart and soul. Not one of them claimed any of his possessions as his own; everything was held in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and all were held in esteem. There was never a needy person among them, because those who had property in land or houses would sell it, bring the proceeds of the sale, and lay them at the feet of the apostles, to be distributed to any who were in need.
-Acts 4: 32-35

Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but it sounds like God wants us to spread the wealth around much more radically than Obama does.

Second Question: We've got NO MONEY. . so what programs will you cut?

Obama says he'll cut the programs that don't work. (no shit Sherlock) He also avoided answering the question any further by explaining where we should INVEST money so we can SAVE money in the long run. It's hard to disagree with his list of investments, health insurance, energy policies, education. . . Right, that's all stuff with which I agree, but still, what would you cut? He doesn't answer.

McCain also tried to avoid the question by talking more about buying your house. But got cornered into answering the question by Schieffer at which point he offered the solution of a spending freeze.

Obama came back with an opinion with which I agree. THAT'S A HATCHET AND WE NEED A SCALPEL. He goes on to say how some programs don't work and should be defunded but some work and are underfunded - we need to fund those programs. Right, good, fund programs that work and defund programs that don't work. That sounds so logical and simple and obvious, it's almost disgusting that this needs to be said! However, it worries me on one level. How can you be sure which programs would work if properly funded? Will he cut programs he says don't work because he doesn't know they would work if they were properly funded? Um, since I don't have any specifics on which programs fall into what category that's as far as I can comment.

Third Question (and a ballsy one): Can you balance the budget in your first term?

McCain's solution is creating jobs through energy independence. He goes on to comment on the anger of U.S. Americans. So um, I am confused why it is ok to call the entire country angry, but not certain parts of it. (As when Obama said people in small town U.S.A. get bitter because they are hard-pressed.) Does anyone else see the contradiction? Obama says people get angry because of economic hard times and he gets in trouble because he's an 'elitist.' Well, McCain who can't remember the number of houses he owns but is NOT an 'elitist,' says people get angry because of economic hard times and it'sallgood.

Anyway, McCain started talking about how he fights against special interest groups and has stood up to his party whereas Obama has never stood up to his party (Ok, perhaps that is just a sign the McCain's party is wrong more often than Obama's, but that's just my opinion). . . This leads Obama to his first real strike in my book. Obama brags about how he is for pay-for-performance for teachers where the rest of the democrats are against it. UH NO! NO! NO! Obama shut your mouth. How can he be pay-for-performance? High-stakes testing, which is the only way one would judge the perform ace of the teachers, is not an accurate measure of a teacher's performance! Children with a high amount of cultural capital (more likely than not this means white, middle-class, suburban children) will perform better on those tests independent of the teacher. Additionally, curriculum is often absent of culturally relevant teaching. (see the post Paper: Two for much further details); the curriculum in place is Eurocentric and assumes whiteness is the norm. This gives an advantage to white children over children of color independent of a teacher. Also, teachers and their influence on students do not exist in vacuums; the school district in which a teacher teaches is largely responsible for the outcome of a student as well as the community in which that child grows. Furthermore, teachers who need to worry about gang violence and children who come to school hungry have more pressing issues at hand than making sure a student passes a regents exam. These problems are more likely to show up in low-income communities than in wealthy communities. HOW CAN HE BE FORE PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE? Ouch, it hurts. (Then again, I was never one of those who thought he was perfect.)

So, this attack McCain made about Obama not standing up to the democrats basically allowed Obama not to answer the question about balancing the budget at all. But Obama did go on to attack McCain for his agreement with Bush on economic policies (while simultaneously giving him props for disliking torture - one positive aspect of McCain I do believe.)

McCain went on to list his disagreements with the Republican Party and a few questions arose. #1, he stood up to them about Climate change, meanwhile his running mate believes climate change is not the fault of people. - McCain is the top of the ticket (though Palin may act as though their positions were swapped), so that doesn't really matter much, I just found it interesting. #2 WHY IS HE SO PROUD OF STANDING UP TO THE REPUBLICANS IF HE WANTS US TO VOTE REPUBLICAN? Palin seriously is the epitome of the Republican base, and I'm personally not convinced John McCain is going to last four more years. So, I am supposed to vote McCain into office with someone who represents a long list of things with which McCain himself disagrees. . . Not gonna happen buddy. #3 He didn't really point out many economic issues in his long list. . .

Ok, moving on to the Fourth Question: Got the guts to say to his face what you said about him behind his back?

This question just FEELS TEDIOUS TO ME, so I'm not gonna obsess about it too much suffice to say that McCain needs to drop this Town Hall B.S. - Someone telling you 'no' to something is not an excuse to viciously attack them! Seriously, if I ask Tabby to make dinner and he says no, and so we both sit around hungry, because I also am not in the mood to make dinner, I cannot, therefore, walk up to him and stab him through the chest or something psycho. . . Sometimes people tell you 'no.' Civilized people get over it and move on with their lives. Hmm. . . what else? John Lewis said mean things about McCain and Obama didn't refute them immediately enough. Well, tell me why it is Obama's business to correct other people's opinions? (Which, by the way, Obama claims he did refute: letting out a statement that the comparison of McCain to George Wallace WAS inappropriate)

Anyway, all this accomplished was to remind me of the time McCain corrected the crazy lady at one of his rallies who said Obama was an Arab. . . Remember what he said, "No ma'am, Obama is a hardworking family man" or something to that extent. Can we say racist-much? People of Arab decent can be neither hardworking nor family men apparently. Obama's campaign has made a similar mistake in my mind. Everyone accusing him of being Muslim and his campaign freaks the hell out and goes all "no no no he's Christian. 100% Christian. Christian, Christian, Christian." . . . Because Muslims are all evil, right? If I were a Muslim he would've lost my vote right there. How offensive to act like it is an insult to be called a Muslim. People are people and should not be prejudged psycho-presidential nominees. . . but whatever. I guess most of this country hates Arabs and Muslims too or something, because there really was not a large outcry against these intolerant, close-minded, biased statements.

Um so, Obama and McCain both have negative ads; they both attack each other; they both lie about each other; and Obama happens to know a guy who used to be a terrorist. That's all you get out of this back-and-forth. (Seriously, what an annoying question on Schieffer's part.)

So, may I defend Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers in a way he, as a viable politician, would never be able to defend it. Can I tell you the real reason it doesn't matter that Obama associates with someone who was a member of a group who bombed the Pentagon? Ok, so here it goes (and get ready to call me a raging leftist and wish the black plague upon my future grandchildren). So, people are always justifying the violence in war - for a greater good and what not. WW II - The U.S. had to go in stop a genocide. (not that they're following such logic in Darfur, but whatever.) Right? Violence is ok when it's violence towards peace (ha, whatever that means) and sponsored by the government. Ayers was protesting the Vietnam War. Not that I advocate violence, but I seldom advocate wars either. . . and to me, Bill Ayers's actions as a member of the Weathermen is one and the same as the U.S.'s actions as an ally in WWII. Hate me for it, but it's true. If you can justify the violence in wars as for a greater good, you can justify Bill Ayers's actions through the same measures.

Fifth Question: Why would your VP pick make a better President than the other guy's?

Obama brags about Biden's foreign policy experience and says that Biden never forgot where he came from. This is the argument that seems to permeate this campaign from both sides. Who represents the "real [U.S.] America?" Who is more of the common man/woman? Who can relate to people living in dying small towns?

I guess this is an important point of departure (from actual ISSUES) for a lot of U.S. citizens, but I don't see why we would desire a President who is the same as everyone else. Pardon me for saying so, but I don't WANT a President with whom I feel like I can sit back and have a beer. . . No, I want someone SMARTER than the average U.S. American. I want a President, no matter where they're from, to be able to relate to the ENTIRE country, not someone who can only understand small town U.S.A., or a global city. Am I the only one who sees things this way? Why would you want someone as intelligent as you are running the nation when you could elect someone MORE intelligent than you? Why would you want someone as cultured as you are when you could have someone more cultured? Why would you want someone who understands as much as you do about the dynamics in differing communities when you could have someone who understands the vastness of this country better than you? Need I go on? You get it, right? So, basically I don't care that Joe Biden "remembers where he came from," but it is important to me that he has always fought "on behalf of working families." I don't care that this is because he watched his own father lose his job. . . Nope, I don't care at all WHY he is fighting on behalf of the middle and lower classes, just that he is. Biden agrees with Obama's tax cut plan: give the cuts to the people who need them most. . . So yes, I believe Obama when he says Biden is "fighting for the little guy." (Ha, politicians have to say the WEIRDEST things!) So in this way, I agree with Obama that Biden would make a decent President.

Of course, McCain refuted Obama's point about Biden's foreign policy experience, saying he was wrong on National Security. But he really has no room to talk here when Palin's Foreign Policy experience consists of being able to see Russia from her state. . . right. . .

Ok, but whatever, before McCain got to that, he bragged about what a great role model Palin is for women and reformers. (Why women in particular?. . . I'm sorry, that just struck me as a bit sexist.) But basically McCain bragged about Palin's reforms as governor: cutting the size of government, resigning from an unethical board, understanding special needs families. That's all well and good except when I remember that I don't mind big government as long as it is a government not brimming with corruption. . . Yet Palin herself, with that whole 'Troopergate' business, was found to have done nothing ILLEGAL PER SE, but she did violate some ethics law. . . So, is she ethical or is she not? And that "bridge to nowhere" bit - she said no to the bridge only after it became a national scandal, and then SHE KEPT THE MONEY!

Ok, so McCain concludes by talking about what a breath of fresh air Palin will be to Washington. . .Excuse me Senator McCain, but if you are such a strong advocate of "fresh air" in Washington, why are YOU running for President? Seriously, he's been in the U.S. congress since 1983.

So, Schieffer flat out ASKS Obama if Palin is qualified to be President.

Now, Obama is trapped like a rat. If he says yes that's an endorsement and if he says no he is an elitist or a sexist or a small-town hater. . . So, what does he do. . . "That will be up to the [U.S.] American people." Ok Obama, I know you had to avoid answering the question because you were cornered, but that's just a stupid response. It is not UP to anyone to DECIDE if someone is qualified for a position. . . the U.S. American people can decide whether or not to GIVE Palin a position, but that has nothing to do with her qualifications. . . Whatever, politicians have to weasel their way out of awkward situations anyway they can I suppose. He then comments on her "special-needs" platform and throws a zinger at McCain, "[S]pecial needs will require some additional funding, if we're going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on behalf of disabled children talks about. And if we have an across-the-board spending freeze, we're not going to be able to do it." Now, that was smart - catch McCain in a contradiction: He supports Palin's ideas about special-needs families (or at the very least brags about them during debates), yet, has no plan to fund them. . .

OK, so HERE is where McCain says Biden is qualified in some respects but that he screws up national security. I don't know his voting record, so I can't comment. . . But if national security is your #1, 2, or 3 issue, this is probably important for you to note and research.

Additionally, McCain takes this time to ask Obama why we have to spend more. . . and my thought was "duh McCain, the special needs children!" I agree with funding for special needs. . . but this debate confused me as to whose side I should be on. . . Palin is the one who talks about it, but Obama was the one who mentioned funding it and the McCain said "why spend more." So. . . you sort this out.

Sixth Question: How are you gonna reduce our dependence on foreign oil during your first term? (And somehow this was under the heading of climate change. . . though reducing dependence on foreign oil guarantees nothing about reducing carbon emissions if all we do is offshore drilling here.)

McCain doesn't even try to answer this question on any level. He says in 7-10 years (not his first term), if we start to depend more heavily on Canada (still foreign oil), we can eliminate our dependence on oil from places that threaten our security. Good job not answering the question McCain, but making it seem like you did. He also mentioned briefly nuclear (which scares me) and other alternative energy sources, but didn't go into details about how, with a spending freeze, investing in any of that would be possible.

Obama's turn to not answer the question: We can accomplish this in ten years. (Yeah buddy, also not your first NOR second term. . . ) Obama says we'll look at offshore drilling and that he's invested in alternative energy sources. (Once again, not going into details. . . Maybe that's because most of the nation is sold when the candidates talk about drilling.) He also says we need to design and build fuel efficient cars in the U.S.
NEWS FLASH: Ever hear of the EV1? Ya know, the electric car that General Motors built TWELVE YEARS AGO! Yeah, but with such pressure from big oil companies the cars were discontinued, customers wanting to renew leases were refused, and the cars were literally destroyed, except for the few in museums and whatnot. OK, right, so what does this teach us? GET OUT OF BED WITH BIG OIL AND WE WOULD'VE HAD THIS CAR CRISIS SOLVED BY NOW.

Also, McCain points out that Obama wants to "look at" offshore drilling while he wants to drill baby drill. . . As a cautious human being who doesn't want to see my island under water due to climate change anytime soon (or anytime at all for that matter), I PREFER the idea of looking at something before jumping to the conclusion that it's a good idea. But that's just me.

Free Trade also got mixed up in this question and I, personally, don't like Free Trade (Ha! how "UNamerican" do you think I am?. . . Well, it is true that I don't live in the 'real America.' But that's ok, because in my fake America we recognize that America is not a country but two whole continents and then some islands.) Ok, so, basically, to summarize, McCain believes in any and all Free Trade as long as it helps out U.S. Americans in some way or another. Obama only believes in Free Trade as long as there are no human rights violations in the process. . . I agree with Obama. I buy fair trade products whenever possible to ensure just that.

Seventh Question (and it's a big one!): HEALTH CARE- Would you favor controlling health care costs over expanding coverage?

Obama plays the optimist here and says, "we've got to do both." But seriously, I don't mind Obama's plan. I personally would prefer a plan like the one the U.K. has, but Obama's plan is better than nothing, for sure! First thing first, he has to cut the average family’s premium by $2,500 annually (who can argue with that) and allow people who don't have health insurance to buy into the federal pool that gov. people get to use.

Furthermore, Obama promises that insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. He promises preventative care for chronic illnesses. And he promises negotiations for the cheapest available drugs. I don't know how anyone with a heart who understands the dire state in which our healthcare system is, who knows that currently 46 million U.S. Americans are uninsured, who gets that filing for bankruptcy because you got sick is NOT ok, and who believes that health care should be a right and not a privilege can disagree with this.

McCain's plan doesn't make sense to me, and perhaps he is just not good at explaining it. But all I gather is I get $5000 to go to any state I want and get healthcare or something. Once again, he is calling for a plan that helps people who already have money and don't need help: the insurance companies. He basically wants to give insurance companies $5000 for every family in the U.S. Somehow this doesn't sit well with me. Also, I want the system to be simpler, not so complex it forces me to shop around in various states so I can figure out to which wealthy company I will give the government's money. (WEIRDNESS)

McCain also tried to call Obama out on forcing small businesses to pay for health insurance for their employees.

Well, Obama says these companies are exempt from paying into a kitty and only companies that can afford to pay will have to pay. (My concern is how he knows where to draw the line.) But this point really hurt McCain in that it allowed Obama to explain the flaws in McCain's healthcare plan. They're worth citing here.

Now, what we haven't talked about is Senator McCain's plan. He says he's going to give you all a $5,000 tax credit. That sounds pretty good. And you can go out and buy your own insurance.

Here's the problem -- that for about 20 million people, you may find yourselves no longer having employer-based health insurance. This is because younger people might be able to get health insurance for $5,000, young and healthy folks.

Older folks, less healthy folks, what's going to end up happening is that you're going to be the only ones left in your employer-based system, your employers won't be able to afford it.

And once you're out on your own with this $5,000 credit, Senator McCain, for the first time, is going to be taxing the health care benefits that you have from your employer.

And this is your plan, John. For the first time in history, you will be taxing people's health care benefits.

See the flaws? The most important one, I believe, is the point about how young healthy people will be the only ones able to go out and get insurance. There are people who can't get insured now because they are too old, or have a preexisting condition, not because they can't afford it. Those people are still out in the cold under McCain's plan. So not cool!


Now McCain freaks out about big government. The government has grown 40% in the past 8 years. . . We can't afford Obama, or it will grow even more Correct me if I'm wrong: The Republicans have had the white house for the past 8 years. During 6 of those 8 years, they also controlled the senate. Right? So, how are the Republicans still running on this B.S. idea of small government? McCain has been pandering to the Republicans ever since he started running for President (Maverick image sold and gone), essentially promising more of the same. So how is he going to say we can't afford a democrat in the white house when the republicans are the ones who fraked everything up? I don't get this logic. Do you get this logic? Please explain.

Eighth Question: Would you nominate anyone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with your stance on Roe v. Wade? (OK, honestly, who's gonna say 'no' to this if they're trying to appear non-partisan?)

McCain promises not to impose a litmus test. . . He would support anyone who was qualified and not judge their ideology, though Obama would judge their ideology. But then he says this weird statement "I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test." What does that mean!? It sounds to me like you are automatically less qualified if you support Roe v. Wade. However, he does not consider this a litmus test.

Obama has a similar answer, but on the other side. . . no litmus test, but it's important that a judge stands up for women's rights including Roe v. Wade.

Now it's McCain's turn to go for the gold. He attempts to appeal to the moral senses of all U.S. Americans, pro-life and pro-choice alike. Obama voted AGAINST life saving procedures for a child born as the result of a failed abortion. Even my sister, who is very pro-Obama, hated him during the primaries for this bit. . . That just looks BAD. And it was strategically intelligent of McCain to bring it up. He also accuses Obama of being for partial-birth abortions.

Unfortunately for McCain, Obama came back strong. And here is where he won me over. Here is where I went from a person who would vote for Obama 'cause, OHMYGOODNESS HE IS A BETTER CHOICE THAN MCCAIN, to actually wanting Obama to be my President. And it seems silly, but abortion is a wedge issue for so many people, I don't see why it can't be an influential factor in my opinion.

OK, OK, ready!? Firstly, Obama explains WHY he, and the Illinois medical society, voted against that bill that makes him seem like the devil: There was already a law on the books requiring doctors to provide life saving treatment to all infants - products of botched-abortions or otherwise. There was no point in voting for a law that would undermine Roe v. Wade, 'cause there was already a law in place doing what this bill was going to do. OK, but that's not the exciting part. Obama is also against late-term abortions of any kind as long as any law contains provisions for the life of the mother. - The bill against which he voted didn't contain such provisions. That's still not the exciting part. . . ready for it? READY!?

But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby."

Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation.

AHH I love it! Do you know that this is what I have been saying since I was fourteen years old!? Educate people about birth control, provide free contraceptives, crack-down on child support payments, make it easier for single mothers to obtain welfare, give everyone health insurance so if they give birth in a hospital they're not in debt the rest of their lives, provide easy adoptions, free day-care, actual options for parenting students, refine maternity leave laws, crack down on coercive abortions, and GUESS THE FRAK WHAT! You have drastically reduced the number of abortions.
Abortions happen more often because women feel they don't have a choice. "If I have this baby I can't finish school." "If I carry out this pregnancy, I'll lose my job." "I have no way to provide for a child." "I can't afford it." Do you see this? People need to HAVE a choice. They need to have a choice that allows them to keep a child as easily as kill one. NO ONE HAS PROVIDED THIS.

The Republicans (beyond the group Feminists for Life, which isn't actually a Republican group, but does have more conservatives than liberals in it) have never taken the steps needed to reduce abortions. They rally behind overturning Roe v. Wade instead. (while never actually doing anything TO overturn it. Look at Bush's six years with a Republican Congress. . . Nothing changed anyway. Overturning Roe v. Wade is an empty promise at best, so why people still vote on it is beyond me.)

Say someone did have the balls to overturn Roe v. Wade. . . what would happen? Without social programs in place to prevent unintended pregnancies, and to aid needy mothers, people will do one of three things when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. One: give birth and then throw the child in a dumpster like those melodramatic prom queens you always hear about on the news (yuck and a half!). Two: Travel to a state where abortion is legal, thus disadvantaging the lower-socio-economic classes as they will be forced to carry out pregnancies and have NO MONEY to provide for their newborns. (Why not disadvantage one group more though, right? It's been working so well thus far!) Three: BACK - ALLEY ABORTIONS. . . because this way a baby can die AND potentially a woman as well!

OK, this sounds bad, correct? So, what we NEED to do, as a society that cares for each other, is systematically reduce the number of abortions through social programs and SEX EDUCATION. (Abstinence only programs don't work. Kids who take those vows are more likely to contract STDs because they still engage in oral sex without protection. . . Additionally, they engage in sexual intercourse, on average, about half a year after kids who DIDN'T take that pledge.) OK, so that's my rant. SAVE THE BABIES PLEASE. Don't just talk about overturning some court case that won't actually do anything to prevent bloodshed. . . Seriously, use you mind and develop strategies that actually work to prevent abortions. Obama is the only presidential candidate who has ever talked this way. . . and he won my support (though he already had my vote) because of it.

Final Question: What are you going to do about this country's LOUSY education system?

It's Obama's turn first and the only thing he says which is not already both painfully obvious and vague is about funding college educations. $40,000 tuition credit every year for every student in turn for community service. This still disadvantages the lower-income-groups as rich kids won't be forced to better their world. . . Wait! That's a good thing to force people to do! Get people involved in their communities or broader society AND pay for college all in one swoop. Genius. 



McCain then advocates for vouchers and charter schools. All vouchers do, in my opinion, is allow everyone to ignore failing public schools. It's a way to ignore the actual problems! (The same way abortion is the way we ignore lack of affordable day care, child support, maternity leave, etc.) He wants competition b/w schools because McCain apparently thinks schools should be treated in the same manner as the free market (which is a FAKE CONCEPT ie: railroads!).

Ok, well, you get the picture. They argue about vouchers for a while, and now I'm bored of writing cause this is OH SO LONG.

Paper : Two

So listen everybody. . . I promise I will write regularly soon. I just need to catch up with school. I have an evil teacher who said we were going to have a midterm but wouldn't tell us what was on it. So, then I STUDIED ALL ALL WEEKEND. I went back over all the readings and all my notes and the online database my class is making, right? So I neglected to do my other works over the weekend. THEN , when I got to class on Monday, my prof. says he decided that morning that it was going to be a take home exam and he wanted it back on Wednesday. Mind you, I skipped my first class on Monday even to study for this thing because I was so deathly terrified. Well, I obviously still didn't have time to do my other homeworks which I had neglected earlier in order to study for the test because NOW I had to do the fraken exam on my own time. Class is only an hour and forty minutes, but since it was a take home exam, he expected us to spend more time than that on it. . . No grammar or spelling errors that woulda flown by if we'd taken it in class and longer answers and what not. I literally didn't sleep Tuesday night to Wednesday morning. . . Causing me to be SO SO TIRED on Wed. that I didn't make it to my last class on Wed. I'm not all about drugs and if I drink more than one medium sized coffee a day I feel like a junkie. . . not to mention caffeine dries out your throat. . So I was tired!! I damn near PASSED OUT on my couch (really, I just fell asleep) at 7 p.m. . . I partially blame Lou Dobbs of course cause the man's an idiot with nothing of interest to say "middle class, I hate immigrants, independent, blah, blah, blah I have no real opinions but simply repeat the same things every night which I've heard from other various sources"and he was droning on on TV. (Tabby likes to watch him. I personally think he's a moron.) So basically, this stupid professor caused me (indirectly as it may be) to miss two of my classes!! NOT COOL IN MY BOOK SIR!! OK, well I'm posting another paper to compensate for my inability to successfully manage this blog with entirely new material at this present moment. This paper is on the important and always overlooked issue of culturaly relevant teaching.

Calla Wright
Hip Hop Pedagogy
Prof. Kersha Smith
15 October 2008

A Critical Moment:
The Importance of Culturally Relevant
Teaching in U.S. America’s School System

Introduction

It is no secret that the public education system in the United States has its share of problems. From a lack of funding to a routine of all-or-nothing high stakes testing, school districts have been struggling to makes ends meet and graduate students. By most standards, a good school district is one that focuses on pushing students through the system with enough knowledge to pass the standardized tests. The even better school districts are those which also strive to send their students to institutes of higher education, whether or not the students desire to go. It is rare to find a school that does more than this. However, educating the United States’ youth should be far more complicated than banking knowledge to them for thirteen years and expecting that they have become enthusiastic and able citizens. Education should be active and engaging. Instead, the standard education is detrimental to many students across the country, especially to those who are already marginalized, i.e. students of color and students in the lower socio-economic stratum. This educational system focused around high stakes testing and the banking system is problematic for a number of reasons: the education process becomes a procedure of dehumanization, critical thinking is not taught, lessons are not focused on social realities and schools become a place of political indoctrination that teach students to accept the status quo. It is through admitting culture into the classroom, and thus admitting students' life experiences and communities into the classroom, that educators can begin to find solutions to these deep-rooted problems.

The Current State of Schools

The banking system of education requires little of students. They must be open to receiving knowledge, receive that knowledge by listening to a teacher list facts, memorize that list of facts, and regurgitate what they’ve memorized into their homework and onto their tests. This approach, as Friere (2000) asserted, is a dehumanizing one which "turns [students] into 'containers,' into 'receptacles' to be 'filled' by the teacher" (p. 72). This system implies that students enter the classroom with no knowledge, formal or informal, of the subject matter being taught. The educator is the sole source of wisdom and the students are the sole recipients of wisdom. There is no exchange of ideas. Duncan (2000) put it aptly when he said, "Knowledge is transmitted passively from teachers to students" (p. 38). The key word here is 'passively.' The process is not one in which a student must be engaged to do well. The process is not one in which the student must think for his/herself or draw any new conclusions.
Even if a student desires the opportunity to analyze the information bestowed upon him/her, this system does not allow for critical reasoning. And as Friere (2000) explained, "Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a character of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as a process of inquiry" (p. 72). He went on to state, "The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness" (p. 73). In other words, in order to achieve a high level of success in school, a student must master the banking system. However, as a student masters this method of memorization and reiteration, s/he does not develop the skills for critical reasoning. This leads to a student's inability to engage with larger society on a critical level. The routine trains students to navigate the world without the ability, or even the will, to question their surroundings or challenge the set social order.
Students remain untrained to protest their surroundings not only because of the way in which they are taught, but also because of the subject matter they are taught. As Rossides (2004) illuminated, "schools do not stress knowledge that can be used! Schools stress abstract skills presumably applicable to social policy or personal problem areas. But everything we know about learning tells us that humans behave in this way (know how to apply knowledge) only if they are trained to do so!" (p. 681). Nowadays schools are forced to focus more and more of their energy ensuring that students pass high stakes tests, causing the subject matter taught to become more and more abstract. Not only is this classroom time focused around one pre-set curriculum, but the end result of this curriculum, the test, has no bearings on real world progress. Rossides (2004) noted, "Researchers have been unable to find a positive relation between grades of test scores and success later in life" (p. 677).
Perhaps the most important problem plaguing schools, is that students are expected to accept the status quo. Students are disciplined to memorize facts unrelated to their own social reality, facts which often run counter to their own observations. (For example, students are taught that the Civil Rights movement equalized power between European-Americans and African-Americans. If asked to explore this statement critically, most students, of any ethnicity, would see the flaws in it solely by examining their own informal knowledge.) This process of route memorization results in students who are indoctrinated with "the American Dream" : democracy is the only way to govern, education is the great equalizer, anyone can achieve greatness if s/he tries his/her hardest. This breads an attitude of contentment, or at least of apathy.
Students, to their own disadvantage, are not taught to view their educational experience as one designed to keep those at the top and those at the bottom in their respective places. However, many have argued that this is just what it does. Rossides (2004) clearly stated, "The American system of education is thus, as much as anything else, a way of transmitting class position from one generation to the next" (p 677). Duncan (2000) insisted "the main purpose of urban public schools in the lives of students of color has been largely to prepare them to occupy and accept subordinate roles within the U.S. economy and, by extension, society" (p. 29).
Schools are not built equally. To start, schools are largely funded by the communities in which they are located. Thus, a school in an affluent community will be better equipped to serve its student population than a school in a poverty-stricken area will be equipped to serve its own. Additionally, access to higher education more attainable when a family can afford to pay for it, when generations of that family have already attended universities, and when schools have the opportunity to focus all of their efforts on making sure students ace all appropriate tests and get involved in enough extracurricular activities. More often than not, these ‘successful’ schools are the schools of middle-class suburbia.

The Role of Culturally Relevant Teaching

One way to combat these problems is to introduce culturally relevant teaching into the classroom. As culture is fluid over time yet feels concrete in any given moment, it is imperative that teachers realize that students’ identities cannot and will not be easily understood. Glutstein, Lipman, Hernandez and de Los Reyes ( 1997) suggested the complexities of culture when they defined it as “the ways in which a group of people make meaning of their experiences through language, beliefs, social practices, and the use and creation of material objects" (p. 712). Though the definition is about a group of people, individuals within that group will inevitably disagree on what their culture is or what their culture represents. Individuals have different global, national, and community-based identities within a culture. Nonetheless, the Glutstein definition offers a glimpse into the complicated nature of culture: culture is not dependent on one aspect such as social practices or beliefs; it is dependent on a combination of complex factors and the way these complex factors help “a group of people make meaning of their experiences.”
It follows that if a teacher changes the names in a mathematical word problem to those of the students in a class, and changes the location of the word problem to the community in which the school is located s/he is not engaged in culturally relevant teaching. The only considerations such an exercise makes are the location and possible language of students. The exercise essentially ignores students’ culture(s); it ignores the way students understand their daily experiences. Ladson-Billings (1994) wrote, “for teachers with culturally relevant practices, students' diverse cultural backgrounds are central" (p. 49). This means that curriculum must be planned around students’ own experiences, not that a curriculum should contain seemingly culturally relevant words every so often. Mahiri explained “acceptance [of subject matter] was more likely when students' personal knowledge was incorporated into instruction in conjunction with a responsive style of classroom discourse'" (as cited in Paul, 2000, p. 248).
One way to avoid this simplistic notion of what cultural relevance means and to assure actually culturally relevant teaching is to go directly to the students for an understanding of their culture(s). Focusing classroom discussion, whenever plausible, around students’ communities and prior knowledge and experiences combats many of the problems discussed earlier in this paper. As Ladson-Billings (1994) pointed out, "students come to school with knowledge and that. . . knowledge must be explored and utilized in order for students to become achievers" (p. 52). A curriculum which focuses on the personal experience of the students removes the abstractions of a lesson. Such a curriculum discourages the banking system as students are forced to engage in conversation and thus engage in thinking. This, in turn, gives students a voice within the classroom and hones an ability to speak out in other settings. It also removes some of the threat of political indoctrination as students’ help dictate the subject matter of the classroom. And finally, by focusing discussions around students’ own communities and personal realities, relevant social issues become central. A discussion about the Great Depression moves to a discussion about what the current financial situation means for students and their communities, enabling students to draw parallels and discover the important differences between the two situations. All of this can lead to what should be the goal of educators: getting students to engage with material on a critical level. Students should be analyzing material and reflecting on the ways that material relates to their own worldviews instead of accepting what they hear or read at face value.

Challenges of Incorporating Cultural Relevance into Teaching

Of course, integrating students’ communities and personal knowledge and experiences into the classroom setting is not an easy task. Paul (2000) suggested that "teachers who are often cultural outsiders in the communities where they work misunderstand or misinterpret the cultural nuances present" (p. 247). Glutstein et al (1997) added to this sentiment, "One can be familiar with students' culture and experience yet still hold a deficit orientation" (p. 727) Furthermore, depending on the grade level with which an educator works, students may have already experienced years of the banking system’s discouragement of critical engagement. An even more overwhelming challenge: students still need to be prepared to pass all of the state mandated standardized tests; thus, a teacher’s curriculum is not entirely his/her own.
These challenges are not insurmountable, and many teachers have found ways to successfully integrate culture into the classroom. Glutstein et al (1997) described these successful teachers as those whose “approaches to instructional practice are rooted in particular ideology, orientation, and world view that are essentially emancipatory and are aimed at helping their students develop personal and social agency in contexts of marginalization and disempowerment" (p. 722). These are the teachers who take the time to understand, as Rossides (2004) put it, that “social classes exist and that they have a contrary interest in education” (p. 669). By exploring this theme, an educator can become dedicated to making sure motivation exists within each student to challenge the status quo. These are teachers who will work to understand students’ cultures and will work to do so without essentializing these cultures, independent of how connected or removed they feel themselves from such cultures.
Culturally relevant teachers are also the ones who understand, as Ladson-Billings (1994) asserted, that ignoring a child’s race or ethnicity “is dismissing one of the most salient features of the child's identity” (p. 33). Teachers who insist on remaining ‘colorblind’ make the assumption that sameness is equivalent to equity. Ladson-Billings (1994) contended that this is not the case. If anything, the opposite can be argued. Teachers must cater specifically to students’ unique orientations in the world, or else some students have an initial advantage over the others. To accomplish this means ignoring the banking system, and finding ways for students to feel comfortable engaging in classroom activities. This idea of classroom involvement will look different in every class as students’ needs are never identical. However, if a teacher is patient enough to develop activities that work for his/her students s/he can slowly break students away from the comforts of the banking system. By forming lesson plans that inhabit different students’ differing needs, many students will actually be better prepared for high stakes testing compared to those students who sat through lesson after lesson while the banking system was employed.
Finally, culturally relevant teachers are those who understand the importance of community. Rossides (2004) established throughout his article, Knee-jerk formalism: Reforming American education, that students in poor and working-class communities cannot succeed in school simply because the school is adequate. The community as a whole takes part in the formation of citizens. Thus as Ladson-Billings (1994) explained, "Teachers with Culturally Relevant Practices See Themselves as Part of the Community, See Teaching as Giving Back to the Community, and Encourage Their Students to Do the Same" (p. 38) By teaching students to embrace and improve their communities instead of to move up and out of them, and by leading by example, teachers send an important message not only about communities, but about the culture of a students community. Students are taught to take pride and ownership in their communities. They are taught that every community is a valuable asset and that where they come from and the people around them matter.

Consequences of Culturally Relevant Teaching

As with anything in life, bringing cultural relevance into the classroom is not without its consequences. There is always the risk that, despite a teacher’s best efforts, some of the challenges mentioned above will not be overcome. However, if a teacher does not at least attempt to engage his/her students in critical and culturally relevant thinking, the results may be more dire to students’ overall life experience than failing a test. For example, as stated earlier researchers have not found a correlation between test scores and success later in life. (Rossides, 2004) Yet, it is clear that oppression and class stratification are not often openly challenged; it is thus imperative that, even though tests are inevitable, teachers spend time with their students learning the skills needed to fight against the status quo.
In addition to the challenges previously mentioned, Paul (2000) explained that using rap music in a classroom lesson, one way of brining in cultural relevance, may result in parental protest. The consequence: certain students are removed from a classroom during a lesson in critically analyzing hip-hop, or teaching through hip-hop is all out banned from school lessons. However, this parental desire to control what their children experience in a school setting is not unprecedented. In my own high school, parents objected to the reading of Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye because of the graphic rape scene. Yet, since book banning has become taboo, all students in my ninth grade class were still required to read it. Because, in much of society, rapping is not as respected as an art form as novel writing, it is easier for parents to win a fight against hip-hop in school than against Toni Morrison. However, just because one genre is not overwhelmingly respected does not mean it is not relevant and important to a student’s educational experience; just because something isn’t respected doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be respected. It is therefore important to push culturally relevant material despite potential parental protest.

Conclusion

Though the potential for negative consequences exists when culturally relevant teaching is considered, it is far more likely that positive consequences will emerge. Students learn to think critically and take ownership of a lesson. Students are presented with the opportunity to express their knowledge and teachers have the opportunity to learn from their students; this teaches children that power structures are not set in stone, but can and should be altered. Community activism and social realities become important lessons within school, forcing the abstract out of the classroom. Perhaps most importantly, the banking system disappears. This then allows students to understand their position in school and become successful through activities that highlight their own strengths. As Friere (2000) explained, "Those truly committed to liberation must reject the banking concept in its entirety, adopting instead a concept of women and men as conscious beings, and consciousness as consciousness intent upon the world." (p. 79) That, after all. is the clearest goal of culturally relevant teaching: to ensure that students are not dehumanized as they are when the banking system is retained. On the contrary, the goal is to ensure that students are treated as conscious beings capable of achieving success and enacting social change.

References
Duncan, G. A. (2000). Urban pedagogies and the celling of adolescents of color. Social Justice, 27(3), 29-41
Friere, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (pp. 71-86). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Glutstein, E.; Lipman, P.; Hernandez, P.; and de los Reyas, R. (1997). Culturally Relevant Mathematics Teaching in a Mexican American Context. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), pp. 709-737.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Paul, D.G. (2000). Rap and orality: critical media literacy, pedagogy, and cultural synchronization. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44(3), 246-252
Rossides, D.W. (2004). Knee-jerk formalism: Reforming American education. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(6), 667-703.

Once again, I'm not fixing this reference list or the lack of indentation on the paragraphs' behalf.
Love, Calla