http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/01/should-college-be-for-everyone/?hp
This Room for Debate topic in today's NYTimes has several short essays taking various pro and con views on the question, Is college (as we know it) really for everyone? The essays together constitute a "concourse," which in Q methodology is a "universe of discourse" in which strands of differing subjectivity merge and depart in what sometimes appears to be a random manner to a detached observer. Using a sampling frame -- technically, a scheme for ensuring a balanced and comprehensive sample of such subjectivity -- someone interested in seeking to find order in this concourse would draw a small number (usually 35-50) of these statements and find a P-set (small but varied group of respondents: college, non-college, young, old, American, international) and ask them to sort the statements in a Q sort. The resulting factors would reflect the common viewpoints underlying these various essays. Typically, such studies show a smaller number of deeper views than the several essays would suggest and, at the same time, more complexity than the simple pro and con of college attendance. This would be a very do-able project for one or two Capstoners curious about this matter and looking for ways of satisfying a big chunk of the writing requirement.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Dorothy and Toto might not want to go back to Kansas
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/kansas-abortion-bill-governor-sam-brownback_n_1307076.html
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, is ready to double down on his beliefs.
"Brownback, speaking to The Huffington Post Monday following the National Governors Association meeting, said that while he has not read the 69-page bill, he is likely to sign the proposal since he opposes abortion rights. Brownback, a former U.S. senator, has signed several anti-abortion bills since he took office last year. "I am pro-life," Brownback said. "When I campaigned I said that if a pro-life bill got to my desk, I will sign it. I am not backing away from that."
His beliefs are his to hold, but the piece of legislation he is expected to sign into law is excessively draconian.
"Among the provisions is one which would exempt doctors from malpractice suits if they withhold information -- in order to prevent an abortion -- that could have prevented a health problem for the mother or child."
I'm not sure if I understand this. Doctors are supposed to commit to a code of ethics before practicing, and to withhold information that could threaten the patient's life, or the life of the unborn, seems to be backwards.
What is everyone's take on this? This could be a generational thing but it seems to be more than that.
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, is ready to double down on his beliefs.
"Brownback, speaking to The Huffington Post Monday following the National Governors Association meeting, said that while he has not read the 69-page bill, he is likely to sign the proposal since he opposes abortion rights. Brownback, a former U.S. senator, has signed several anti-abortion bills since he took office last year. "I am pro-life," Brownback said. "When I campaigned I said that if a pro-life bill got to my desk, I will sign it. I am not backing away from that."
His beliefs are his to hold, but the piece of legislation he is expected to sign into law is excessively draconian.
"Among the provisions is one which would exempt doctors from malpractice suits if they withhold information -- in order to prevent an abortion -- that could have prevented a health problem for the mother or child."
I'm not sure if I understand this. Doctors are supposed to commit to a code of ethics before practicing, and to withhold information that could threaten the patient's life, or the life of the unborn, seems to be backwards.
What is everyone's take on this? This could be a generational thing but it seems to be more than that.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The Adoration of Gun Rights
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/us/2012/02/28/piers-bill-maher-guns.cnn
In the aftermath of the school shooting that took place in Ohio earlier this week, Bill Maher brings up what I consider to be a valid question. Why is it that so many Americans adore their gun rights? Yes the second amendment gives U.S. citizens the right to bear arms, but why is the number of individuals that choose to exercise this right so large? (There are over 300 million firearms in circulation in our country.) And why is it that many of the people that own one or more guns value them so much? Maher argues that guns are a religion to a large portion of the United States and feels that we need someone that is willing to stand up to the gun lobby. While it would be impossible to get rid of all the guns in the U.S. he emphasizes the need for someone to highlight the bad relationship that our country has with guns.
I tend to agree with his overall stance. If people feel the need to have a gun for protection that's their right, but I feel that it should be concealed in a safe location and knowledge of its existence need not be broadcast to others. It's often the case that the individuals who carried out a shooting, did so with a gun they stole from a relative. Now I'm not saying that a family that owns a gun needs to hide this fact from each other, but the way that it is made known should be carefully considered. Much of our society has the mindset that guns are cool and when young kids learn that their family owns a gun, many of them like to share this information with their friends. This wouldn't be much of a concern if everyone stored their guns in a safe place where they couldn't be easily accessed, but obviously this isn't the case. I feel that it would be possible to create some kind of storage requirements for firearms that wouldn't restrict the right of individuals to bear arms. It might be impossible to enforce any such requirement, but I feel that our country's adoration of gun rights needs to be countered in some fashion.
In the aftermath of the school shooting that took place in Ohio earlier this week, Bill Maher brings up what I consider to be a valid question. Why is it that so many Americans adore their gun rights? Yes the second amendment gives U.S. citizens the right to bear arms, but why is the number of individuals that choose to exercise this right so large? (There are over 300 million firearms in circulation in our country.) And why is it that many of the people that own one or more guns value them so much? Maher argues that guns are a religion to a large portion of the United States and feels that we need someone that is willing to stand up to the gun lobby. While it would be impossible to get rid of all the guns in the U.S. he emphasizes the need for someone to highlight the bad relationship that our country has with guns.
I tend to agree with his overall stance. If people feel the need to have a gun for protection that's their right, but I feel that it should be concealed in a safe location and knowledge of its existence need not be broadcast to others. It's often the case that the individuals who carried out a shooting, did so with a gun they stole from a relative. Now I'm not saying that a family that owns a gun needs to hide this fact from each other, but the way that it is made known should be carefully considered. Much of our society has the mindset that guns are cool and when young kids learn that their family owns a gun, many of them like to share this information with their friends. This wouldn't be much of a concern if everyone stored their guns in a safe place where they couldn't be easily accessed, but obviously this isn't the case. I feel that it would be possible to create some kind of storage requirements for firearms that wouldn't restrict the right of individuals to bear arms. It might be impossible to enforce any such requirement, but I feel that our country's adoration of gun rights needs to be countered in some fashion.
More Fallacies put forward by GOP candidates
Paul Krugman has a short but important post today on his blog that focuses on the national debt and the plans put forth by the candidates, including President Obama.
What does he find? Obama's plan is the best for future Debt-to-GDP levels. This is a crucial point going further. Yes the deficit is large, but it is more important to have a growing economy that outpaces debt issuance. The focus of government should be restoring Aggregate Demand and not on its own balance sheet.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/four-fiscal-phonies/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
What does he find? Obama's plan is the best for future Debt-to-GDP levels. This is a crucial point going further. Yes the deficit is large, but it is more important to have a growing economy that outpaces debt issuance. The focus of government should be restoring Aggregate Demand and not on its own balance sheet.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/four-fiscal-phonies/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
Monday, February 27, 2012
Internet radicalizes U.S. Muslims quickly
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/27/report-internet-radicalizes-us-muslims-quickly/#disqus_thread
"Young American Muslims can become radicalized online very quickly and with few warning signs, becoming potential terrorists before federal agencies can identify them..."
America should allow young Muslims to stay? No, I think that the problem is not the internet. The problem is religion. It is hard to find a solution because we have different culture and religion.
"Young American Muslims can become radicalized online very quickly and with few warning signs, becoming potential terrorists before federal agencies can identify them..."
America should allow young Muslims to stay? No, I think that the problem is not the internet. The problem is religion. It is hard to find a solution because we have different culture and religion.
Obama "snobbish" for pushing college?
Rick Santorum, former senator, and proud possessor of three college degrees -- a B.A., M.A. and J.D. -- has for the past two days taken his Culture War scorched-earth policy to a whole new level. Calling the President a "snob" for encouraging students to seek education beyond high school (though Obama is careful to say that community college training in a trade or in the operation of high-tech manufacturing equipment is included), Santorum completes his rant with the more-customary ultra-conservative dismissal of higher education as a haven for producing "graduates just like the President, ideological clones of Mr. Obama." The rant is replete with the pejorative put-down of college and university professors as enemies of genuine independence of thought, practicing instead their politically-correct version of university-based liberalism. The latter, Santorum's version of Gingrich's secular-socialist left, is of course completely divorced from real-world life in almost every respect (though it does, its critics agree, function to recruit defenseless young voters for the Democratic party!)
At a minimum, such a view presumes little independence of thought on the part of the ideological victims of professorial brainwashing that pass through the gulags that comprise our finest institiutions of higher learning. And it assumes an ideological unanimity and motivation on the part of those teaching in US colleges and universities that is remarkable at best, and positively conspiratorial at worst. But this is only my own view, and Mr. Santorum's observations obviously are connecting with some segments of those who are willing warriors in the Culture Wars (beyond Charles Murray, who obviously Santorum's intellectual kindred spirit.) So the inevitable question: Do you concur with the "snobbish" label for those advocating greater levels of college attendance by American high school grads today? If we set aside the deterrent posed by cost considerations, is it fair to brand those pursuing a college education in twenty-first century America as "snobbish" wannabe's?
At a minimum, such a view presumes little independence of thought on the part of the ideological victims of professorial brainwashing that pass through the gulags that comprise our finest institiutions of higher learning. And it assumes an ideological unanimity and motivation on the part of those teaching in US colleges and universities that is remarkable at best, and positively conspiratorial at worst. But this is only my own view, and Mr. Santorum's observations obviously are connecting with some segments of those who are willing warriors in the Culture Wars (beyond Charles Murray, who obviously Santorum's intellectual kindred spirit.) So the inevitable question: Do you concur with the "snobbish" label for those advocating greater levels of college attendance by American high school grads today? If we set aside the deterrent posed by cost considerations, is it fair to brand those pursuing a college education in twenty-first century America as "snobbish" wannabe's?
What ails Europe?
OPINION
| February 27, 2012
Op-Ed Columnist: What Ails Europe?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The two common explanations - call it the Republican narrative and the German narrative - are just wrong.
Professor Krugman's column today is, as usual, contrarian in the sense that he takes issue with so-called "conventional wisdom." Actually, he condemns two versions of conventional wisdom today: one he tags "the German narrative" on what accounts for the frightful state of Greece, Italy and a few other of the euro-zone economies; the other is easily recognized as familiar to Americans following the Republican nomination race. Hence it is termed by PK as "the Republican narrative." You will recognize its ties to Mitt Romney's indictment of Obama as wanting to abandon American exceptionalism and emulate European socialism. The latter, in this narrative, is bad, bad, bad, because it commits the sins Charles Murray and his ilk see the federal government doing by "enabling" the Fishtown Poor. In other words, it's the welfare state that has brought Greece and Italy to the edge of the economic abyss. Except it's not. When you look at welfare spending as a percentage of government outlays (or as a percent of GDP), the actual data tell a different story than either the Republican or the German narrative. Sweden, crown jewel of social democracy, was earlier cited as evidence that states with large social-welfare programs are doomed to economic ruin. This was the conclusion of the Cato Institute years ago when the Swedish economy suffered through a recessionary dip. And this is the oft-repeated litany of the new Republican orthodoxy: from Paul Ryan to Rand Paul to Mitt Romney, welfare states and entitlement programs doom their citizens to lazy moochers who live off the tax revenues that hard-working, self-reliant citizens with jobs pay only to learn that their industriousness is subsidizing the sloth of the Fishtown folks. A very compelling story, except that it is not supported by any facts. Check out Sweden's economic health now; and while you're at it, check the fractions of the Swedish population who are chronic consumers of the welfare benefits alloted year after year to the unemployed or disabled in that country. So if a story persists in spite of facts that point to the contrary as reality, what is it that explains the American attraction to the yarn that it is exceptional and, as such, holds a special place in God's creation and is therefore obligated morally to cut off subsidies to those in its borders who are morally unfit? Check out the post preceding this one by Mr. Nelson for one possibility.
Op-Ed Columnist: What Ails Europe?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The two common explanations - call it the Republican narrative and the German narrative - are just wrong.
Professor Krugman's column today is, as usual, contrarian in the sense that he takes issue with so-called "conventional wisdom." Actually, he condemns two versions of conventional wisdom today: one he tags "the German narrative" on what accounts for the frightful state of Greece, Italy and a few other of the euro-zone economies; the other is easily recognized as familiar to Americans following the Republican nomination race. Hence it is termed by PK as "the Republican narrative." You will recognize its ties to Mitt Romney's indictment of Obama as wanting to abandon American exceptionalism and emulate European socialism. The latter, in this narrative, is bad, bad, bad, because it commits the sins Charles Murray and his ilk see the federal government doing by "enabling" the Fishtown Poor. In other words, it's the welfare state that has brought Greece and Italy to the edge of the economic abyss. Except it's not. When you look at welfare spending as a percentage of government outlays (or as a percent of GDP), the actual data tell a different story than either the Republican or the German narrative. Sweden, crown jewel of social democracy, was earlier cited as evidence that states with large social-welfare programs are doomed to economic ruin. This was the conclusion of the Cato Institute years ago when the Swedish economy suffered through a recessionary dip. And this is the oft-repeated litany of the new Republican orthodoxy: from Paul Ryan to Rand Paul to Mitt Romney, welfare states and entitlement programs doom their citizens to lazy moochers who live off the tax revenues that hard-working, self-reliant citizens with jobs pay only to learn that their industriousness is subsidizing the sloth of the Fishtown folks. A very compelling story, except that it is not supported by any facts. Check out Sweden's economic health now; and while you're at it, check the fractions of the Swedish population who are chronic consumers of the welfare benefits alloted year after year to the unemployed or disabled in that country. So if a story persists in spite of facts that point to the contrary as reality, what is it that explains the American attraction to the yarn that it is exceptional and, as such, holds a special place in God's creation and is therefore obligated morally to cut off subsidies to those in its borders who are morally unfit? Check out the post preceding this one by Mr. Nelson for one possibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)