One of my friends is applying to law school, and to help this friend learn more about law school I tracked down several law school blogs. Reading these blogs piqued my interest in law school — why not, I asked myself, find good blogs that I can regularly read to better understand the b-school experience?
My GMAT is next Wednesday. I’ve practiced every night for the last two weeks, and am much better prepared. I’ve a good idea of what kind of content is needed in the essays (typing complete answers on a computer in 30 minutes won’t pose a problem — I used to write 800-word movie reviews for my college newspaper in less than 45 minutes). I’m making fewer errors in the math section and I feel I can really get my score up.
(Because what headline writer would voluntarily use “Schwarzenegger”?)
I’m a Democrat. A big-time one. I’m a Democrat because, where I came from, the Republicans try to prevent African-Americans from voting and regularly support explicitly racist platforms. But, all in all, I’m not that unhappy with the result of our last election.
Part of it is simply the natural feeling of being a supporter of the party that lost during bad times. If Arnold is the right choice, then he’ll fix a lot of things, the economy will get better, and I’ll be able to earn more money and have a more comfortable life. Ain’t nothing wrong with that outcome. And if Arnold turns out to be the wrong guy for the job, then I get to say “I told you so.” Plus the Dems win back the statehouse in 3 years. Ain’t too much wrong with that either.
But that’s not the biggest part of my motivation. The biggest part is that, hey, democracy (small d) actually worked!
Look at who we elected: a pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-choice Republican. How’d that guy get out of a primary? Oh, he didn’t. A year ago, the GOP fielded a very weak Bill Simon against Gray Davis, inevitably losing, when they could have possibly won with Dick Riordan. But Dick (as he likes to be called) was too far to the left on social issues to make it out of the primaries. We skipped the primaries, and the majority of Californians got the governor they wanted.
And, even before the election, we had dialog we never would have had because of the many fringe candidates in the election. Think Arianna Huffington didn’t spice things up? Heck, even Mary Carey apparently had a lot to say!
The lesson here is clear. We need to have this kind of open registration and race for future statewide offices. Folks worry about somebody winning with only a plurality of votes, but isn’t it better to have somebody win with less than 50% of the votes from 70% of the electorate (as voted in this election), than it is for the winner to get just over 50% of the votes with only about a 40% turnout (Davis vs. Simon)?
So roll on our recall election! Let’s have ‘em every few years!
“Eolas”:http://www.eolas.com/ is a company started by a former Cal prof, in partnership with UC Berkeley, to market and defend this professor’s invention of a method in which browsers can display embedded content, such as Flash and Real Media. Eolas felt that its technology was being used by Microsoft in Internet Explorer for Windows, and sued, winning its initial rounds. In response, Microsoft has modified how IE works to get around the patents Eolas holds. The result could be harmful to companies with Web sites and the companies who design Web sites.
Hey, I live in LA, I’m required to have an opinion on the recall election. Good thing I’m such an opinionated guy!
There are three major questions:
# Recall Gray Davis or not?
# Whom to be the governor, if yes on the above?
# Should we require by law that the legislature put money aside for infrastructure improvements, before monies for any non-education purposes are procured (prop. 53)?
# Should the government stop collecting data on race for a variety of things (the “Racial Privacy Initiative, Prop. 54)?
Here’s what I think. And write this down, because you should vote the way I tell you to.
*1.* I have a number of problems with the whole recall thing. First of all, although he hasn’t done a good job, I don’t think Gray’s done an awful job. He protests that the problems he’s had to deal with have been caused by others — and, as much as I’m all about taking responsibility, I’m inclined to agree. The power thing? Caused by the power companies. Our prolonged recession? Caused by the Bush administration. So, it’s not his fault after all.
And didn’t the Republicans have a chance to get rid of him a year ago? Oh yeah, they did. And, just like the first time Gray got elected, the GOP failed to nominate a candidate who could win. That’s nobody’s fault but the Republicans; had they pulled together, they could’ve nominated Dick Riordan and won the statehouse but nooo, they fell for Davis’s shrewd campaigning and nominated Bill Simon instead.
So the Republican recall effort seems like two things to me:
* An attempt to bypass the usual election process and vote in a Republican governor who otherwise either wouldn’t win the party’s nomination or who would be unelectable in the view of the general voting public
* Sour grapes from having gotten soundly trounced on a statewide level two elections in a row
Neither of these seem like reasons I would want to unelect Davis. Thus, my suggestion *No On The Recall*.
*2.* Well, even if we vote no on the recall, we’ve still got the opportunity to vote for a possible next governor. There are three main options here:
* Arnold
* Cruz
* McClintock!
Arnold is the front-runner, but I fail to see why he should be governor. Notwithstanding his “ten-point plan”:http://www.joinarnold.com/en/press/pressdetail.php?id=202, he’s failed to offer any clear ideas of how he’d fix things in Sacramento. The sexual harassment charges don’t fundamentally change how I feel about him as governor, except insofar as it serves as further proof that this is a guy who did not plan to be governor, does not have the experience or knowledge to be governor and has not prepared himself in any way to be governor. He’s an actor and bodybuilder, and has lived his life as such. That’s fine, and there’s nothing wrong with being an actor and bodybuilder. He’s had a good career and a good life and has made a lot of people happy. On the other hand, that qualifies him in no way to be governor.
Cruz Bustamante seems like a reasonably good guy. The Republicans have tried to paint him as Davis’s right-hand man, but the two have, in fact, not been on speaking terms for three or so years now. Cruz’s big advantage is that, unlike Davis, he’s down with the Legislature, which might mean that he can get something done in Sacramento. And a lot of the problem for the last few years is that Davis and the Legislature have not gotten along well enough to actually do much of anything.
Tom McClintock seems like an upstanding individual as well, well-qualified for the post and full of good ideas but also frighteningly right-wing on social issues. Probably unelectable given California voters’ social liberalism.
Out of these three, *Cruz Bustamante gets my vote*.
*3.* Prop. 53 is an interesting question. There have been a lot of initiatives lately that have taken control of spending out of the hands of legislators and put it in the hands of the electorate. This is the opposite of the planned pattern. It’s negative, because it limits the ability of the legislature to spend as may be needed at any time. But it’s positive, because it prioritizes expenditure on things that are really important to people.
My position on this matter is principally dictated by my past experience. I grew up in Baltimore, and we had a vacation cabin in the woods in West Virginia. It was always funny driving to West Virginia, because you could tell exactly when you crossed the state line because the roads turned awful. California doesn’t feel like Maryland, it feels like West Virginia. Maryland is a nice state but not particularly rich, and California certainly should be at least as nice. *Vote yes on Prop. 53*.
*4.* Prop 54 is an interesting one. Proponents claim that, by tracking racial data, we make race important. If we didn’t track racial data, then race would become less important and we would be closer to a colorblind society. Historically, this seems like a bit disingenuous; the reason we track most racial data is because certain races have traditionally been discriminated against. Tracking this data allows us to know when people are being discriminated against, rather than hiding it under the veneer of civilized society.
Those who wish to dismantle tools that have traditionally been used to better society must prove that their new way will also benefit society. The proponents of 54 have done no such thing. *No on 54.*
So the official Juniorbird.com slate is:
# *No on the recall*
# *Bustamante for governor*
# *Yes on 53*
# *No on 54*
That’s how you should vote. In the immortal words of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, “vote early, vote often!”
Tomorrow evening, I’m scheduled for an info session for one of the schools I’d like to attend. This info session is quite some distance away, down in Orange County. The question: to go or not?
After a week and a half of pretty intensive review, I’ve managed to get my math scores up quite a bit. I’m making fewer mistakes and I’m more often choosing quick approaches to get problems solved in the least time possible.
Back in the Stone Age of the Internet, the only company you could register a .com, .net or .org domain name with was Network Solutions. Their bureaucracy was byzantine, they were slow to act, and they were expensive, but they were the only act in town.
Rush Limbaugh has quit ESPN over the flap caused by his controversial statements Sunday about Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. There’s been a lot of talk this season about why the Eagles, who played in the NFC championship game last season (that’s one game away from the Super Bowl) lost their first two games this year quite badly. A lot of speculation has centered around the abilities of McNabb and if he’s really the great quarterback that’s long been held to be. Rush stirred the pot by saying:
bq. “I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”
A lot of people felt that this statement was both racist and wrong, and so Rush was forced to resign.
The questions, of course, are:
# Was the statement racist?
# Is McNabb overrated?
# Has McNabb’s race advanced his career?
# Should Rush have resigned?
Let’s start with queston #1. Was this a racist statement? Limbaugh’s co-hosts (two of whom are black) didn’t call him on what he said, and one, Chris Berman, has stated that “[a]s cut and dry as it seems in print, I didn’t think so when it went by my ears.” So, it’s possible that this is a non-racist opinion on an issue involving race.
To evaluate this option, we need to know more about the person who said it. Well, in this case, we know all we need to about Rush. A spokesman for the new Right, he’s often talked about issues of race and specifically of the victimization of whites by Affirmative Action. His record is clear. Racist men make racist statements.
#1: Yes, it was a racist statement.
Is McNabb overrated? That’s a hard question. Last season, he led his team to the NFC championship, and he’s been in the Pro Bowl for both of the last two years. These are pretty good signs of a competent, talented quarterback; why then, tree games into the season, has he played eight thoroughly awful quarters and only four fine ones?
Some will blame McNabb, and a lot of hay has been made from the changes in his form from this season to the last. Apparently he’s both failing to progress and improve in general and he’s overthinking his play this year. It’s clear he’s not being the player he can be, but the player he could be was certainly one of the best in the NFL ever.
McNabb also has a weak supporting class. The Eagles’ running game has disappeared and the team does not exactly have a stellar corps of receivers; a quarterback can’t win without anybody to give the ball to.
Where does this leave us? #2: McNabb may not be brilliant, but he’s at least an average quarterback, and probably well above average.
Has his career been advanced by the color of his skin? Well, in the ’80s, there weren’t many black quarterbacks. But great players like Super Bowl-winner and MVP Doug Williams, Warren Moon and the Eagles’ own megastar Randall Cunningham became big NFL stars and showed that African-Americans can successfully quarterback teams (this ignores previous black quarterbacks on the Broncos, etc., who were successful but appear to have been one-offs).
Since the ’80s, there have been a lot of African-American quarterbacks in the NFL: The Eagles, Vikings, Titans, Buccaneers, Panthers, Ravens, Bengals, Cardinals, Jets, Saints and Cowboys have all had black starting quarterbacks in the last five years. The position appears to be fully integrated.
Of course, McNabb has been heavily promoted, to an extent that even Super Bowl quarterback Steve McNair of the Titans hasn’t. Has he been in ads because he’s black? Sure, I imagine that he’s been selected for certain campaigns aimed at certain demographics, just like every actor in every ad is picked because they connect with the target audience of the ad. But has he become a starting quarterback because he was black? Was he drafted high because he was black? No, he was drafted high because of a stellar college career at Syracuse. He started because the Eagles, well, had no other choice. Note that, say, Jeff Blake hasn’t become a Campbell’s Chunky Soup pitchman just because he’s black.
Now, McNabb is a mobile, running quarterback, and it’s important to notice that almost every mobile, running quarterback in the NFL is black. In contrast, the white guys (Carson Palmer, Kurt Warner) are by-and-large drop-back pocket passers. Why is this? I don’t have any good reasons, but I suspect that, at some early level, coaches are treating black and white players differently, *and* cultural influences are driving black and white players to want to play differently. There may be racism in what style of quarterbacking players are taught, but it comes well before the NFL, and probably before college.
So, has McNabb’s race been an advantage to him? #3: No.
We can evaluate Rush’s statement thusly:
# Was the statement racist? Yes
# Is McNabb overrated? He’s at least an average quarterback, probably better.
# Has McNabb’s race advanced his career? No.
Should Rush have resigned? Well, what did Disney think they were getting when they hired him? He’s not particularly knowledgeable about football, and his record on social commentary is well-known. It should have been expected that he’d say something like this. Why fire somebody for performing as you expected they’d perform when you hired them? That’s certainly unethical.
But wait, shouldn’t there be consequences for racist statements? Sure, but it was way too late to apply those consequences to Rush — his racist statements in the past should’ve ensured that ESPN didn’t hire him in the first place. Once Disney made the hire, they made the decision that there wouldn’t be consequences for his past behavior. Why would there be consequences for his identical behavior in the future?
So, should Rush have been fired? No. But he should never have been hired.
Recent Comments