There is not enough to be said about this book and the effort President Clinto has put forth since leaving the White House. While this book borders on self promotion and gratification, it is written in a way that takes the attention away from Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, thus zooming in on the organizations (and people) that the foundation has helped or been involved with. I could not help but be inspired as I listened to this book traveling the roads for Christmas Break.
Clinton has taken on challenges that would rival that of those faced while in public office and done so in an understated and humble way. The main theme through out the book is to do what you can, where you can, and do so effectively, which in my mind is what President Clinton has done. Not only is the book a practical guide to giving, but it provides the reader a philosophical background and footing for giving. After having listened to it, I take back most of my negitive opinions about President Clinton and see him has a philanthropic giant in a world that needs more. "Isn't that a bit glowing, and gushy?" you might be asking yourself. Yes, I can answer. In the introduction Clinton sealed the deal stating why he wrote the book and taken the actions described in it. Clinton talks at length about "evening the scales" for having been granted the fortunes he has been granted. This is a man who is by all means risen from near nothing, and done great (and some less than great) things. This notion of "evening the scales" is something that I have taken to heart at times of my life ande something we all to aspire to.
Clinton's main point of the book is to give what suites you. Wither it be time, money, skills, or goods, nothing will be wasted if given effectively. Clinton gives a laundry list of group, people and causes that need gift from the most mundane to the most intense. If you are feeling down about the world, need courage to keep up the fight, or just plain pessimistic about the human race, give this book a try. You might just find what you need.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Stuck In The Middle
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/29/tucson_orders_closure_of_mexican_american
My first reaction to hearing this one the radio was "This is absurd!" What has the country come to when we have programs being shut down that work? This program is effective in trying to get a demographic that struggles to do well in the educational system. Besides, this reeks of racism. This is a group of people who what amounts to a government doing everything in its power to keep it from success. Sure, Chicanos are great for picking crops, doing construction, and working fast food, but they do not warrant their own history is what the state of Arizona is saying.
Not only that but this goes to show what I have said in previous blogs (http://www.fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2011/12/article-from-npr-about-role-of-blacks.html) about the demonizing of history in our schools. Math, science and reading are all that is important. Little matters if a student cannot type up a lab report in anything but text, it is important that they learn calculus.
That being said, the more I listened to this article, the more I agreed with the State of Arizona, but not on the same grounds. No, ultimately the program should not be closed. It is effective, it is historical, and it is just plain racist to deny a group of people their past. Why then would I agreed. I am after all supposed to be liberalish. I agree (even if faintly) with this because I see this as a way away from these massive divisions in our country. We have worked so hard to create a safe environment for all people (a noble effort) but at what cost? I think the cost is our sense of community. Simply put what I am saying is: the fact that we recognize every difference makes it worse. Why not simply see people for what they are: People. We all have basically the same parts, it matters little (in my mind's eye) what you do with this parts,what color those parts are, or who you do what with those parts. We all have brains in our heads, that can be developed. What should matter most is what we do with them. Yes there are going to be differences, but we have gotten so hung up on those that it all we see.
So where does that leave me? Keep the program, but do so in the mindset of being a history of people. People who belong to a larger group of people.
Out of many, One seems to be a pretty good closing
My first reaction to hearing this one the radio was "This is absurd!" What has the country come to when we have programs being shut down that work? This program is effective in trying to get a demographic that struggles to do well in the educational system. Besides, this reeks of racism. This is a group of people who what amounts to a government doing everything in its power to keep it from success. Sure, Chicanos are great for picking crops, doing construction, and working fast food, but they do not warrant their own history is what the state of Arizona is saying.
Not only that but this goes to show what I have said in previous blogs (http://www.fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2011/12/article-from-npr-about-role-of-blacks.html) about the demonizing of history in our schools. Math, science and reading are all that is important. Little matters if a student cannot type up a lab report in anything but text, it is important that they learn calculus.
That being said, the more I listened to this article, the more I agreed with the State of Arizona, but not on the same grounds. No, ultimately the program should not be closed. It is effective, it is historical, and it is just plain racist to deny a group of people their past. Why then would I agreed. I am after all supposed to be liberalish. I agree (even if faintly) with this because I see this as a way away from these massive divisions in our country. We have worked so hard to create a safe environment for all people (a noble effort) but at what cost? I think the cost is our sense of community. Simply put what I am saying is: the fact that we recognize every difference makes it worse. Why not simply see people for what they are: People. We all have basically the same parts, it matters little (in my mind's eye) what you do with this parts,what color those parts are, or who you do what with those parts. We all have brains in our heads, that can be developed. What should matter most is what we do with them. Yes there are going to be differences, but we have gotten so hung up on those that it all we see.
So where does that leave me? Keep the program, but do so in the mindset of being a history of people. People who belong to a larger group of people.
Out of many, One seems to be a pretty good closing
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Saturday, December 24, 2011
You Heard It Here First
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-drops-republican-party-registration-ny-031537528.html
This article is more than enough evidence for me to secure my suspicions about President Obama being elected for a second term. Why you might ask would I say such a thing about President Obama when the article referes to Donald Trump. Here is my thought process.
Trump is pulling out of the Republican party so he can run as an Independent in 2012. It is clear as day to me, and plenty of other people know that he has wanted to do this. He has gone so far as to suggest that he would on TV, print and digital media. Should he do so, it will have (in my mind) devastating effects on the Republican Party in the general election.
Why would Trump be a problem to the Republicans and not President Obama? Because Trump can go around picking up the pieces that are left after Romney comes out with the nomination. Yes, Romney will come out with the nomination. He is moderate enough to attract some moderates/ moderate liberals and just ever so appealing to the conservatives that he will get it. The problem is, and this is were Trump comes in, he is not going to get the most Conservative of the party. The Tea Party will most surely fall in line with Trump and some of the middle of the conservative road (the moderates of the right you might say) will go for Trump as well. Thus, with the Republicans will split and President Obama will win.
You might be saying to yourself "How can he say that so soon?" "What does it know that I don't" The answers are: history and nothing. One merely has to look at the 1990 election between Clinton and Bush 41. Ross Perot came in as the "Common Sense Conservative" and pocketed votes from Bush by the trash bag. Yes Bush was the incumbent but it is the same principle as now. Trump will come in as say all the right things, spend massive amounts of money (stack Perot up against Trump and you'll see the only difference is a TV show) and pick up the crumbs from Romney.
You wait and see my friends, and when it happens you'll say to yourself "Ya know, I read that somewhere?!?" That's when I step in and say "Right here."
Happy Christmas All!
This article is more than enough evidence for me to secure my suspicions about President Obama being elected for a second term. Why you might ask would I say such a thing about President Obama when the article referes to Donald Trump. Here is my thought process.
Trump is pulling out of the Republican party so he can run as an Independent in 2012. It is clear as day to me, and plenty of other people know that he has wanted to do this. He has gone so far as to suggest that he would on TV, print and digital media. Should he do so, it will have (in my mind) devastating effects on the Republican Party in the general election.
Why would Trump be a problem to the Republicans and not President Obama? Because Trump can go around picking up the pieces that are left after Romney comes out with the nomination. Yes, Romney will come out with the nomination. He is moderate enough to attract some moderates/ moderate liberals and just ever so appealing to the conservatives that he will get it. The problem is, and this is were Trump comes in, he is not going to get the most Conservative of the party. The Tea Party will most surely fall in line with Trump and some of the middle of the conservative road (the moderates of the right you might say) will go for Trump as well. Thus, with the Republicans will split and President Obama will win.
You might be saying to yourself "How can he say that so soon?" "What does it know that I don't" The answers are: history and nothing. One merely has to look at the 1990 election between Clinton and Bush 41. Ross Perot came in as the "Common Sense Conservative" and pocketed votes from Bush by the trash bag. Yes Bush was the incumbent but it is the same principle as now. Trump will come in as say all the right things, spend massive amounts of money (stack Perot up against Trump and you'll see the only difference is a TV show) and pick up the crumbs from Romney.
You wait and see my friends, and when it happens you'll say to yourself "Ya know, I read that somewhere?!?" That's when I step in and say "Right here."
Happy Christmas All!
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Why I'm Not Worried (The Bathtub Explination)
I had an email conversation with a friend this morning about a particular point I teach my students. This individual flew off the handle about how we teach our student "banks pay interest to savers as incentive to save." He rattled off a long email about our our financial system has been ruined by greedy bankers and the Federal Reserve. I had two points of response for him and I will lay them out here for you.
1) Students of economics (more especially eight graders) need to learn how the system SHOULD work. Part of why the banks and the economic system fails us on occasion is because people do not understand how it works. Also, if more people were/are educated about economy the less panic there would be in times of economic down turn. Chicken Littles abound when the economy turns south for its every decade down-ward cycle. Our economy is almost designed to have valleys. Thus, we need to educate our students on the benefits of banks so they can make money in the boom years when money flows freely. It's a simple thought if you get right down to thinking about it. Plus the way things SHOULD be ought to be taught in every subject. It is just good education. If we taught them all the greedy little tricks and dirty little secrets than someone would pitch a damn fit about that too.
Along the same lines, I replied to is email with the response that if you are not part of the solution than you are part of the problem. Investing is critical in times of depression. Banking even more so. We have to keep the economy moving, even if slowly in order to recover. One does not stop peddling going up the hill on a bicycle do they? Why would we stop investing when there is a depression. Trust men, if I had money you can beat ( and ultimately lose) you ass I would be out there investing like crazy. Yes I would lose money, but if you have the guts to be investing in a depression, you have the guts to invest a lot in a depression.
2) My second responding point is that the economy (believe it or not) is in good hands. Despite some of the greedy hoarders that run government agencies, our economy is run by people with far more education in economics than your or me. What does not cause me to fly off the handle when I read about government economic interventions is a bastardized version of the economy given to my in my college economics classes. I say it have been bastardized in that I have modified it to fit Virginia SOLs. Think of it like this:
The economy is a bathtub, and a bath tube with let four hot/cold handles. One handle is labeled TAXING, a second INTEREST RATES, a third GOVERNMENT SPENDING, and a fourth GOVERNMENT BORROWING. The job of the Federal Reserve is to keep the bath tub full and to keep it relatively warm...it is after all a bathtub. The Federal Reserve, Congress, and the President is to determine which of the handles needs to be turned, if it needs to be hot or cold, and just how hot or cold it needs to be. The most important part of this is that different administrations and Federal Reserve chairs have different philosophies as to what justifies a good temperature for a bath, and which handles to turn to keep it that way.
This understanding keeps me, along with what I know about the economy, from running around like Chicken Little when we hit an economic snag. I understand that the way President Obama, President Bush, and my friend would/do fix the economy is going to be as different at the three characters. Different adjustments suite different situations. Franklin Roosevelt fixed the economy with supply sided measures designed to correct a supplying economy. Presidents Bush and Obama have attempted (and done well I think) at using demand sided measures to correct out faulting consuming based economy.
What my main aim with my friend, and this blog post was/is to show that we cannot and should not panic. We should look at the measures taken, when not greed filled, by those in control of the economy and see what they are trying to do. President Roosevelt had his detractors in his day, just as President Obama has his today. Give this a chance. As my economic professor told me 'We're not out of a recession until we're in another one." Not the most optimist way of looking at things but if you think about it, it is
1) Students of economics (more especially eight graders) need to learn how the system SHOULD work. Part of why the banks and the economic system fails us on occasion is because people do not understand how it works. Also, if more people were/are educated about economy the less panic there would be in times of economic down turn. Chicken Littles abound when the economy turns south for its every decade down-ward cycle. Our economy is almost designed to have valleys. Thus, we need to educate our students on the benefits of banks so they can make money in the boom years when money flows freely. It's a simple thought if you get right down to thinking about it. Plus the way things SHOULD be ought to be taught in every subject. It is just good education. If we taught them all the greedy little tricks and dirty little secrets than someone would pitch a damn fit about that too.
Along the same lines, I replied to is email with the response that if you are not part of the solution than you are part of the problem. Investing is critical in times of depression. Banking even more so. We have to keep the economy moving, even if slowly in order to recover. One does not stop peddling going up the hill on a bicycle do they? Why would we stop investing when there is a depression. Trust men, if I had money you can beat ( and ultimately lose) you ass I would be out there investing like crazy. Yes I would lose money, but if you have the guts to be investing in a depression, you have the guts to invest a lot in a depression.
2) My second responding point is that the economy (believe it or not) is in good hands. Despite some of the greedy hoarders that run government agencies, our economy is run by people with far more education in economics than your or me. What does not cause me to fly off the handle when I read about government economic interventions is a bastardized version of the economy given to my in my college economics classes. I say it have been bastardized in that I have modified it to fit Virginia SOLs. Think of it like this:
The economy is a bathtub, and a bath tube with let four hot/cold handles. One handle is labeled TAXING, a second INTEREST RATES, a third GOVERNMENT SPENDING, and a fourth GOVERNMENT BORROWING. The job of the Federal Reserve is to keep the bath tub full and to keep it relatively warm...it is after all a bathtub. The Federal Reserve, Congress, and the President is to determine which of the handles needs to be turned, if it needs to be hot or cold, and just how hot or cold it needs to be. The most important part of this is that different administrations and Federal Reserve chairs have different philosophies as to what justifies a good temperature for a bath, and which handles to turn to keep it that way.
This understanding keeps me, along with what I know about the economy, from running around like Chicken Little when we hit an economic snag. I understand that the way President Obama, President Bush, and my friend would/do fix the economy is going to be as different at the three characters. Different adjustments suite different situations. Franklin Roosevelt fixed the economy with supply sided measures designed to correct a supplying economy. Presidents Bush and Obama have attempted (and done well I think) at using demand sided measures to correct out faulting consuming based economy.
What my main aim with my friend, and this blog post was/is to show that we cannot and should not panic. We should look at the measures taken, when not greed filled, by those in control of the economy and see what they are trying to do. President Roosevelt had his detractors in his day, just as President Obama has his today. Give this a chance. As my economic professor told me 'We're not out of a recession until we're in another one." Not the most optimist way of looking at things but if you think about it, it is
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)