HURRICANE SANDY and..... Inequality?

Turn on the TV, go on the internet, open a newspaper, and one of the first things you will see right now is pictures and/or information on Hurricane Sandy; this is no surprise considering the size of the storm, its potential destructive power, and the nation's memories of Katrina. As I was searching for more information on the storm, I came across this article, and was immediately interested because I recently finished reading Timothy Noah's The Great Divergence. 

The article takes two things that seem completely separate (natural disasters and economic inequality) and explains how they are related. According to the author, inequality increases the amount of damage natural disasters like Sandy can do because so many people lack the resources to support themselves in a time of crisis. Normally, this is not a connection many people (myself included) would make; however, when you think about it, it makes sense.

If you just consider the families could be potentially "devastated" by a natural disaster, many of them would probably be low-income. This does not mean that the storm would skip over the houses of high-income families; it simply means that they would have the money and resources to live elsewhere, make repairs, etc, whereas low-income families could not. Although both types of family would be equally emotionally devastated, the low-income families would lose more comparatively.

On the other hand, one could read this article as kind of a stretch in order to raise awareness of the potential damages economic inequality causes. The title "How Economic Inequality Makes Hurricanes More Deadly" certainly caught my eye and made me want to read on. Perhaps it just seems like a stretch because it is not natural for me to connect natural disasters and inequality in my mind. Either way, the article presents a very interesting argument, especially after reading Noah's book.

The Pre-K Divergence

Reading The Great Divergence by Timothy Noah has certainly put American economic inequality in perspective for me. Something that I once thought little about is now more real to me. One part of Noah's solution to "the great divergence" that I find particularly interesting is the implementation of preschool for all children. Children who attend preschool have a higher chance of earning a bachelor's degree; this has been proven, and it makes Noah's argument fairly appealing. As I looked further into this idea, I found this article, one which shows how current preschool attendance is somewhat of a vicious cycle for low income families. 

The article shows a couple graphs, which depict the difference in preschool attendance between children from low and high income families. It is very clear that children from high income families are much more likely to attend preschool. As was previously stated, children who attend preschool are more likely to earn a bachelor's degree, and it is the children from high income families that receive the advantage of this early education. These children, who grow up to earn degrees, have a better chance of landing a good job and, in turn, making more money; they will then be able to send their children to preschool, thereby continuing the cycle. 

Considering this cycle of education and the way it privileges higher income families gives Noah's argument for universal preschool more merit.

When Entertainment and Politics Collide

I ran across this article this weekend; it talks about the political views of actors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck in light of Affleck's new movie, Argo, which depicts the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. While Damon dismissed the idea, Affleck says he would be open to someday running for office.

Both men have long been politically active, expressing their views and endorsing particular candidates. Reagan and Schwarzenegger were both actors before being politicians, so it can be done. This is not to say that actors are not qualified to work in politics, but it got me thinking, how do their prior roles in movies affect their relationship to the public as politicians? Are actors who play particular roles more suited for politics? Perhaps the preparation that goes into more political movie roles would be beneficial, as well as the way that the actor is portrayed on screen. It would be interesting to see what you think.

Learning Revolution

As I considered the conclusion of Bad Teacher and the implications of Kumashiro's idealistic model for the education system, I recalled a TED Talk that a friend once showed me. This talk is by Sir Ken Robinson, a British public intellectual who has been influential in the development of education worldwide. In his talk, he makes an argument somewhat parallel to what Kumashiro is suggesting: that schools must be personalized rather than standardized, that students should be given an environment which allows for the development of creativity rather than conformity.

If you have fifteen minutes to spare, I recommend watching the talk here.

Essentially, Robinson is advocating a decrease in the importance put on reforms - which rework the same linear model of schooling - in favor of a "transformation" to a more "personalized" and "organic" model. This sounds a lot like what Kumashiro is describing when he says we should have schools that "are also centered on rich, broad, interdisciplinary curriculums that are developed by the teachers and grounded in research, as well as complex assessments that support teachers in tailoring their instruction to their students' needs"

I agree that it is time for education to take a turn towards this type of school model. Like Kumashiro and Robinson, I believe that the current school system is too standardized; just look at our main form of assessment: high stakes standardized tests. Each child's future - as well as the school's for that matter - is dependent on if he or she can take a test well. I am not saying that testing isn't necessary because it is, but the current model for assessment in education is far too narrow.

Of course it's easy to say that it would be better to have schools like the ones described by Kumashiro nationwide; the tough question is how would we fund them? I am not going to pretend like I have a solution for that problem that would be both effective and productive for the economy. Perhaps, if the money the government and donors are currently putting into experimental school reforms was reallocated, we could work towards the "transformation" Robinson talks about; however, that probably would not be sufficient.

Anyone else have ideas on how such schools could be funded?

Homeland

The media's depiction of any group of people can have great influence over common public thought about the group. Reading Islamaphobia got me thinking about how Muslims - as well as other groups/entities - are portrayed in popular entertainment today. One show that came to mind is Homeland, which my roommates and I got into last year (the show is currently airing its second season on Showtime). I am not implying that the show is a great contributor to Islamaphobia, but I do think that it presents some interesting themes. Watch the trailer here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4-KYAWPKzY

This trailer for the first season centers around Nicolas Brody, an American who was a prisoner of war in Iraq, and Carrie Mathison, the CIA agent who is investigating him. After an informant told Mathison that a POW had been "turned", she made it a priority to find out if it was in fact Brody, who is being hailed as a war hero in the states.

The show touches on some interesting themes. For example, a large amount of screen time is devoted to  the CIA investigation of Brody and how many agents are conflicted as to how it should be done, considering his status as a war hero. Islam plays a role in the show as well, seeing as the people who held Brody captive were Muslim members of Al-Qaeda. The first season, in its entirety, is really interesting, and it gets the viewer thinking about his or her own feelings towards Brody, since they do not know for sure if he has been "turned" or not. 

Has anyone seen the show? What do you think?

TV Personalities "Rumble"

I have seen - on some of your MLS 590 blogs - talk about the Stewart/O'Reilley debate that happened over the weekend. I personally did not watch the debate, but in a couple articles I read that underneath the humor involved, the two ideologically opposite personalities touched on some real issues. Apparently the two men have maintained fairly consistent communication for several years, appearing on each other's shows a number of times to discuss current events and politics. Did anyone watch the debate? What did you think? Is the type of relationship these two men have one that exemplifies how people with different ideas should interact? 

I'm genuinely curious to see what people thought about the "Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium". Do you think they were doing it to convey their ideas to the nation, or just for entertainment? Was it good or bad for viewers to see?