Iris and I went to this wonderful event yesterday
I don’t see many ice giants around
Two of the three major international tests—the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study and the Trends in International Math and Science Study—break down student scores according to the poverty rate in each school. The tests are given every five years. The most recent results (2006) showed the following: students in U.S. schools where the poverty rate was less than 10 percent ranked first in reading, first in science, and third in math. When the poverty rate was 10 percent to 25 percent, U.S. students still ranked first in reading and science. But as the poverty rate rose still higher, students ranked lower and lower. Twenty percent of all U.S. schools have poverty rates over 75 percent. The average ranking of American students reflects this. The problem is not public schools; it is poverty.
Let freedom ding!!
The basic route to Snipes farm from either the Chapel Hill University Inn or from the Aloft Hotel requires that you get on the bypass around Chapel Hill and go towards Carrboro, which is west of Chapel Hill.
Here is a map showing the route from the Chapel Hill University Inn (A) (you may have to click on view larger map to see the route - is this a Google Maps bug?):
And here is a map showing the route from the Aloft Hotel (A):
View Becca and Warner in a larger map
You can also get directions from the Snipes Farm website
Still true after all these years…
2011 Hike up Mt LeConte
In the last few years, I’ve tended to interpret Paul Krugman’s realization that “… those who cling to the belief that politics can be conducted in terms of people rather than parties … are kidding themselves.”
According to Krugman, things changed in 1994 “…when radical Republicans took control both of Congress and of their own party … and the center did not hold. Now we’re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician’s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. (emphasis mine)”
I see various ways to implement this when making political contributions:
I’ve been following choice #2. But there’s a variant on that, call it
2a. Contribute to Democrats whose ideas and actions I support even when they are running against Democratic incumbents in primary elections.
The danger of this is that the victor of the primary will be weakened in the race against the evil Republican.
But I think there is a convincing argument for doing this:
… there’s a world of difference between supporting the Democratic Party and supporting incumbents in the Democratic Party. The Tea Party did a very smart thing last year: They kicked out a few independents who didn’t support them politically. Too many progressives followed the President’s lead and pledged their fealty to Democratic incumbents who had devoted themselves to undermining causes supported both by progressives and the majority of Americans across the political spectrum.
Not everyone did that, of course. Progressive groups like Blue America did a brilliant job of targeting problem Democrats and promoting progressive challengers, and the union movement performed a valuable service for all Americans by supporting Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s challenger in the Arkansas primary.
Challenging incumbents doesn’t just help the progressive cause. Paradoxically, it helps the Democratic Party too, by forcing it to clarify its “brand” and espouse more popular positions than those it now holds.
…
If progressives want to identify and work within the Democratic party, that’s a worthwhile endeavor. But their relationship to the party should mirror what Thoreau said about his relationship to the world: Be in it, but not of it.
I found this insightful and provocative comment in a discussion about the role of western technology in the Egyptian revolution:
Americans are possibly the most disconnected population on the planet. A very high percentage of Americans are wealthy enough to purchase the reality they want and the rest have a full selection of illusions to indulge in at all economic levels. I cannot imagine what kind of an immediate threat it would take to get the collective attention of the American people to focus together.
By the way, I think that western technology was vital to the North African revolutions: if the world hadn’t seen YouTube videos of Mohammed Bouazizi and if AlJazeera hadn’t retransmitted these images, using western technology, then these revolutions would not have happened, at least not when they did.
Governments attempt to keep opponents in ignorance. I remember marching against the invasion of Iraq by G.W.Bush in Raleigh, NC. There were about 8,000 of us. There was no peep in the media of our march or of the fact that many thousands of people had marched around the country at the same time. The internet told us about these other people and helped us realize that we were not alone. I believe that social media had this effect with Tunisians, Egyptians, and many other citizens of the Arab countries.
