to honor the recent passing of one of the south's greatest writers, i spent my long weekend reading a perfect friend by reynolds price.
it's a great book and the author's life is a shining example of what we can become if we worry about ourselves instead of everyone around us.
30 January 2011
05 January 2011
Congress # 112
john boehner is a nightmare.
that is all.
and if you need further proof that he's a joke (by "joke" i mean unprofessional and annoying), take a look at the childish memo he sent to senators reid, durbin and others.
ugh, looks like we've found our new sarah palin, not that we were looking.
that is all.
and if you need further proof that he's a joke (by "joke" i mean unprofessional and annoying), take a look at the childish memo he sent to senators reid, durbin and others.
ugh, looks like we've found our new sarah palin, not that we were looking.
14 December 2010
obama's promises
i haven't blogged in a while because 1) i've been busy and 2) i haven't had anything to say.
this semester, i took an econometrics class that i thought would be the death of me, but i ended up with an A. partied over that today.
in other life news, i've narrowed my graduate school applications to these schools: oxford, london school of economics, yale princeton, uc-san diego, minnesota, michigan, and boston college. like i said on twitter, i'll probably be rejected from all of them and end up at wal-mart or mcdonalds. but someone's gotta do those jobs, too, right?
anyway, i had a twitter convo with one of my favorite NYT columnists, charles blow, today about obama and race. blow is a liberal and he's not afraid to admit it, something i really respect and try to emulate. but, sometimes i think he focuses on race a little too much, and despite its tremendous exigency in both politics and society, sometimes it really isn't a relevant aspect in the public discourse.
one of the things i've respected most about obama is the way he doesn't linger on his race. he's truly a president of the people, blacks and whites alike. despite his presidential victory being a monumental achievement for minority groups, he hasn't focused on it too much. mr. blow said he was the "green mile" president, i.e., he's a black man with a lot of power but no aggression - blow called it a stereotype. but it's not a racist stereotype, mainly because for a stereotype there has to be a precedent (we've only had old white men as presidents).
second, if you take away the race aspect of the "green mile" metaphor, then every president falls into that same category. bush made big promises, many of which were never realized. clinton was the same way. that's part of politics, but it's where obama's finding the source of most of his criticism, both from the left AND from the right (especially from the right). despite keeping most of his promises (blow cites politifact and says that he's kept 123, broken 24 and compromised on 39), many of them have lacked popular support. and example of this is healthcare reform, which was full of back room deals and old washington political games. america's dissatisfaction with his first two years is exacerbated by the fact that the promises he's failed to keep are biggies, eg, environmental protection, but we'll save that for later.
with that said, the discord surrounding obama doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he's black; rather, it has to do with his politics. blow is right in saying that the left's expectations for obama were way too high, and from the beginning, as a lot of people pointed out, he was destined to fail because of it. the fact that he's weathered the storm this long says a lot about the great job he's doing. personally, i wish he wouldn't compromise so much, i wish he would move a little farther left, use his keen political foresight to maneuver his social and economic initiatives through congress and leave the white house knowing he tried his hardest to do what he promised his (liberal) base he would do. but, he needs to stop pretending that there's a different way to do it.
maybe i'm way off base, but it seems like a lot of people i talk to are leaning republican lately because they pick a side and stick with it - even if it's an opinion you disagree with, you can rest assured a tea partier isn't going to change her mind. granted, most tea partiers are lunatics (i live in mississippi, so just take my word for it), but their commitment to conservatism, no matter how off-base it may be, is attractive.
supporters of obama who are "liberal" have a hard time calling themselves liberal because obama avoids labeling himself the same way. so if i walk around and call myself a liberal, i'm not associated with obama, but rather nancy pelosi (who i also love). i think that's at the heart of recent polls' low numbers for people who identify as liberals.
because of this polarization, the only options in modern politics are "yes" and "no". and with obama trying to take the middle road, there aren't a lot of people willing to support him. the left attacks him for being to soft and the right (no surprises here) accuse him of being a socialist dictator bent on creating an obamaist empire (a stretch, but whatever).
to conclude this post that's already too long, dissatisfaction with obama isn't based on his race. in fact, it surprises me that there haven't been any major racist gaffs about obama yet.
the real reason obama can't catch a break is because he's doing his job the right way - trying to pull two polarized and increasingly factionalized political parties together, compromising on tough issues, and growing from an inexperienced idealist on whom everyone left of center rested their "hope" to an experienced president who knows how to work a system he claimed he could change.
but, no matter how hard he's trying, no matter how much he's grown, he's going to fall short sometimes, and the beauty of the american system is that we can criticize him when he does. it's imperative, though, that our criticisms be fair and balanced (i'm talking to you fox news) and that our suggestions for obama's improvement be realistic. to allow for fair criticisms, we have to take race out of the picture, and we can't write off everyone who disagrees with him as a racist just because he happens to be black. double standards, especially in politics, are unacceptable.
good luck, president obama. i'm rooting for you, but i'm not going to be scared to call you out for what i think are sometimes mistakes.
and thank you, mr. blow, for making me think about this. as always, i'll look forward to your next column.
this semester, i took an econometrics class that i thought would be the death of me, but i ended up with an A. partied over that today.
in other life news, i've narrowed my graduate school applications to these schools: oxford, london school of economics, yale princeton, uc-san diego, minnesota, michigan, and boston college. like i said on twitter, i'll probably be rejected from all of them and end up at wal-mart or mcdonalds. but someone's gotta do those jobs, too, right?
anyway, i had a twitter convo with one of my favorite NYT columnists, charles blow, today about obama and race. blow is a liberal and he's not afraid to admit it, something i really respect and try to emulate. but, sometimes i think he focuses on race a little too much, and despite its tremendous exigency in both politics and society, sometimes it really isn't a relevant aspect in the public discourse.
one of the things i've respected most about obama is the way he doesn't linger on his race. he's truly a president of the people, blacks and whites alike. despite his presidential victory being a monumental achievement for minority groups, he hasn't focused on it too much. mr. blow said he was the "green mile" president, i.e., he's a black man with a lot of power but no aggression - blow called it a stereotype. but it's not a racist stereotype, mainly because for a stereotype there has to be a precedent (we've only had old white men as presidents).
second, if you take away the race aspect of the "green mile" metaphor, then every president falls into that same category. bush made big promises, many of which were never realized. clinton was the same way. that's part of politics, but it's where obama's finding the source of most of his criticism, both from the left AND from the right (especially from the right). despite keeping most of his promises (blow cites politifact and says that he's kept 123, broken 24 and compromised on 39), many of them have lacked popular support. and example of this is healthcare reform, which was full of back room deals and old washington political games. america's dissatisfaction with his first two years is exacerbated by the fact that the promises he's failed to keep are biggies, eg, environmental protection, but we'll save that for later.
with that said, the discord surrounding obama doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he's black; rather, it has to do with his politics. blow is right in saying that the left's expectations for obama were way too high, and from the beginning, as a lot of people pointed out, he was destined to fail because of it. the fact that he's weathered the storm this long says a lot about the great job he's doing. personally, i wish he wouldn't compromise so much, i wish he would move a little farther left, use his keen political foresight to maneuver his social and economic initiatives through congress and leave the white house knowing he tried his hardest to do what he promised his (liberal) base he would do. but, he needs to stop pretending that there's a different way to do it.
maybe i'm way off base, but it seems like a lot of people i talk to are leaning republican lately because they pick a side and stick with it - even if it's an opinion you disagree with, you can rest assured a tea partier isn't going to change her mind. granted, most tea partiers are lunatics (i live in mississippi, so just take my word for it), but their commitment to conservatism, no matter how off-base it may be, is attractive.
supporters of obama who are "liberal" have a hard time calling themselves liberal because obama avoids labeling himself the same way. so if i walk around and call myself a liberal, i'm not associated with obama, but rather nancy pelosi (who i also love). i think that's at the heart of recent polls' low numbers for people who identify as liberals.
because of this polarization, the only options in modern politics are "yes" and "no". and with obama trying to take the middle road, there aren't a lot of people willing to support him. the left attacks him for being to soft and the right (no surprises here) accuse him of being a socialist dictator bent on creating an obamaist empire (a stretch, but whatever).
to conclude this post that's already too long, dissatisfaction with obama isn't based on his race. in fact, it surprises me that there haven't been any major racist gaffs about obama yet.
the real reason obama can't catch a break is because he's doing his job the right way - trying to pull two polarized and increasingly factionalized political parties together, compromising on tough issues, and growing from an inexperienced idealist on whom everyone left of center rested their "hope" to an experienced president who knows how to work a system he claimed he could change.
but, no matter how hard he's trying, no matter how much he's grown, he's going to fall short sometimes, and the beauty of the american system is that we can criticize him when he does. it's imperative, though, that our criticisms be fair and balanced (i'm talking to you fox news) and that our suggestions for obama's improvement be realistic. to allow for fair criticisms, we have to take race out of the picture, and we can't write off everyone who disagrees with him as a racist just because he happens to be black. double standards, especially in politics, are unacceptable.
good luck, president obama. i'm rooting for you, but i'm not going to be scared to call you out for what i think are sometimes mistakes.
and thank you, mr. blow, for making me think about this. as always, i'll look forward to your next column.
24 October 2010
"ah-ha" moment
a lot of stuff fell into place today.
i discovered a newly-created master's program at lse. it's called "environmental economics and climate change." it's perfect for what i want to do because:
-it's economics
-it's specialized
-it's a master's program
-it's in england
i got some pretty exciting results on a regression i ran and have finally put them into a formal paper. for those of you who care,
tot_SO2_em = -35.674 - 0.000GRP_percap + 0.004GRP_100mil + 2.846GRP_persec - 2.148empl_per_sec + ε
the important part of that equations is GRP_persec (percent contribution of secondary industries to gross regional product) and empl_per_sec (percent contribution of secondary industries to regional employment). the dependent variable is sulfur dioxide emissions, which cause acid rain and are usually accompanied by other nasty pollutants. this regression suggests that, on average, as secondary industries' contribution to GRP increases by 1%, sulfur dioxide emissions increase by 20,346 tons. that's pretty serious. the weird part is that as secondary industries employ 1% more of the population, SO2 emissions actually decrease by 20,148 tons. now the problem is explaining that discrepancy...
tonight was a lot of fun. we went to memphis to visit a haunted corn maze, but the line was really long, so we turned around and drove back to oxford. guess the fazoli's quick pasta made it worth it.
we got back to oxford, went to parish's and the library (the bar, not the books) then went home. it was a nice, easy night with friends that i haven't seen in a while.
now it's time for bed. my parents are coming up tomorrow for lunch and i'm crossing my fingers that i'll have a productive day at work.
until then,
m
i discovered a newly-created master's program at lse. it's called "environmental economics and climate change." it's perfect for what i want to do because:
-it's economics
-it's specialized
-it's a master's program
-it's in england
i got some pretty exciting results on a regression i ran and have finally put them into a formal paper. for those of you who care,
tot_SO2_em = -35.674 - 0.000GRP_percap + 0.004GRP_100mil + 2.846GRP_persec - 2.148empl_per_sec + ε
the important part of that equations is GRP_persec (percent contribution of secondary industries to gross regional product) and empl_per_sec (percent contribution of secondary industries to regional employment). the dependent variable is sulfur dioxide emissions, which cause acid rain and are usually accompanied by other nasty pollutants. this regression suggests that, on average, as secondary industries' contribution to GRP increases by 1%, sulfur dioxide emissions increase by 20,346 tons. that's pretty serious. the weird part is that as secondary industries employ 1% more of the population, SO2 emissions actually decrease by 20,148 tons. now the problem is explaining that discrepancy...
tonight was a lot of fun. we went to memphis to visit a haunted corn maze, but the line was really long, so we turned around and drove back to oxford. guess the fazoli's quick pasta made it worth it.
we got back to oxford, went to parish's and the library (the bar, not the books) then went home. it was a nice, easy night with friends that i haven't seen in a while.
now it's time for bed. my parents are coming up tomorrow for lunch and i'm crossing my fingers that i'll have a productive day at work.
until then,
m
20 October 2010
Still thesising
i have successfully turned the noun "thesis" into a verb.
D: what are you doing tonight?
M: thesising, again.
S: hey, what have you been doing all weekend?
M: thesising.
L: what are you doing later today?
M: probably going back to the lab to thesis.
as annoying as data compilation and editing is, i'm actually really excited to see how the regressions are going to turn out. this has been my most challenging semester without a doubt (毫无疑问), but i'm really enjoying most of my classwork, and i'm picking up some great time management skills in the process.
sidenote: i keep meaning to blog about the ole miss mascot issue, but i feel bad for 1) wasting time to talk about it and 2) pretending it's a big deal. it's not. nevertheless, i'll get around to it...eventually.
D: what are you doing tonight?
M: thesising, again.
S: hey, what have you been doing all weekend?
M: thesising.
L: what are you doing later today?
M: probably going back to the lab to thesis.
as annoying as data compilation and editing is, i'm actually really excited to see how the regressions are going to turn out. this has been my most challenging semester without a doubt (毫无疑问), but i'm really enjoying most of my classwork, and i'm picking up some great time management skills in the process.
sidenote: i keep meaning to blog about the ole miss mascot issue, but i feel bad for 1) wasting time to talk about it and 2) pretending it's a big deal. it's not. nevertheless, i'll get around to it...eventually.
15 October 2010
friday afternoons
what are you doing today?
this is what i'm up to:
it's almost 4:00 PM. i'm done for the day. it's too nice outside to enjoy it from the computer lab. time for some tennis, an episode of lost, mexican food and the square. i'll get back to work tomorrow.
this is what i'm up to:
it's almost 4:00 PM. i'm done for the day. it's too nice outside to enjoy it from the computer lab. time for some tennis, an episode of lost, mexican food and the square. i'll get back to work tomorrow.
10 October 2010
on china and liu xiaobo
if you follow me on twitter, you know that i wholeheartedly supported liu xiaobo's nomination and ultimate reception of the nobel peace prize.
dr. liu has been a peaceful advocate of government reform in china for years. he's well-educated, polite, and the only institution he threatens in the chinese communist party. in america, we know that if the ruling party fails to meet the people's demands, it's out. apparently the CCP knows that, too.
why is china's government so worried? if chinese communism is all it's cracked up to be, wouldn't democracy allow their party to stay in control? the government has recognized corruption as one of the biggest hindrances of social development. why, then, will they not allow political competition, which would inherently eliminate some of the corruption? why even pretend to hide behind the smokescreen that china calls a constitution, when the most basic personal liberty - the right to free speech - is trampled on over and over again?
liu's charter 08 (中文) is a great piece of work, principally authored by a man who understands freedom's necessity. he calls for equality, social justice, rule of law (as opposed to rule of a single party), and proper stewardship of our natural resources. if the government were doing it's job, none of this would be warranted, much less threatening. the government's response shows just how scared they are of reform.
but what about reformers inside the government? what about premier wen jiabao?
wen wants reform. if he weren't shackled by communist propaganda, he might be able to implement some of his ideas. he is in china's highest eschelon of power, but they still censor his cnn interview. he's not crazy - he knows things would have to move slow - and that's why the party needs to let him run with it. if they wait until people are fed up with their rule, there's going to be a violent uprising. my advice: let wen do his thing; show the chinese people that the party is on their side.
the first way to do this is by easing censorship laws and RELEASING LIU XIAOBO. this would be a great indicator that china is serious about correcting its past human rights abuses and moving forward as a world power. just look around, are there any other one-party governments that enjoy the same status as, say, america, japan or western europe? no.
democracy doesn't necessicarily equate to freedom, but it seems the two are correlated. debate would help the communist party grow and meet the needs of its constituents. unfortunately, all the debators are in jail.
that's sad, and if china ever wants to make it to the top, which it obviously does, the central government is going to have to accept political reform as inevitable and ride it out. those who should win, win. those who should lose, lose. that's how the world works.
dr. liu has been a peaceful advocate of government reform in china for years. he's well-educated, polite, and the only institution he threatens in the chinese communist party. in america, we know that if the ruling party fails to meet the people's demands, it's out. apparently the CCP knows that, too.
why is china's government so worried? if chinese communism is all it's cracked up to be, wouldn't democracy allow their party to stay in control? the government has recognized corruption as one of the biggest hindrances of social development. why, then, will they not allow political competition, which would inherently eliminate some of the corruption? why even pretend to hide behind the smokescreen that china calls a constitution, when the most basic personal liberty - the right to free speech - is trampled on over and over again?
liu's charter 08 (中文) is a great piece of work, principally authored by a man who understands freedom's necessity. he calls for equality, social justice, rule of law (as opposed to rule of a single party), and proper stewardship of our natural resources. if the government were doing it's job, none of this would be warranted, much less threatening. the government's response shows just how scared they are of reform.
but what about reformers inside the government? what about premier wen jiabao?
wen wants reform. if he weren't shackled by communist propaganda, he might be able to implement some of his ideas. he is in china's highest eschelon of power, but they still censor his cnn interview. he's not crazy - he knows things would have to move slow - and that's why the party needs to let him run with it. if they wait until people are fed up with their rule, there's going to be a violent uprising. my advice: let wen do his thing; show the chinese people that the party is on their side.
the first way to do this is by easing censorship laws and RELEASING LIU XIAOBO. this would be a great indicator that china is serious about correcting its past human rights abuses and moving forward as a world power. just look around, are there any other one-party governments that enjoy the same status as, say, america, japan or western europe? no.
democracy doesn't necessicarily equate to freedom, but it seems the two are correlated. debate would help the communist party grow and meet the needs of its constituents. unfortunately, all the debators are in jail.
that's sad, and if china ever wants to make it to the top, which it obviously does, the central government is going to have to accept political reform as inevitable and ride it out. those who should win, win. those who should lose, lose. that's how the world works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)