Rachel Maddow: Auto-Tunes in the News #3

If you are in need of a quick round-up:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

On MEChA and the Chicano Movement Today

I received an invitation recently in Facebook for the 40th anniversary celebration of the Plan of Santa Barbara, a document produced after a symposium was organized by Chicano educators at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Now, usually I wouldn't care much because I will not be in California to attend (it will be held at UC, Santa Barbara). But as the Mechistas get ready to celebrate, I want to offer some critical thoughts on the movement.

For those of you who do not know, many public universities in California have a chapter of M.E.Ch.A, which is a Spanish acronym that stands for Chicano student movement of Aztlán. This month the MECh.A. chapters will hold a statewide conference in Satan Barbara (ME.Ch.A. comes from the Plan of Santa Barbara). The Plan, to be sure, is a product of its time. It was produced in 1969 during the Chicano movement which coincided with the civil rights movement, the farm workers movement, and other activism at the time. Its production was marked by student protests in L.A. where students asked that their history be included in their education. At the time it called attention to the abysmal drop-out rates of students of color, and it tried to get students interested in social questions with the goal of improving the situation for the poor.

I was in M.E.Ch.A. during my year at Chico State, so it is an organization I worked for and some of the things we did were really meaningful. I thought then, however--and still do, that we never seriously talked about what the "movement" meant to us. I joined and stayed because the people were nice, we had a similar skin color and wanted to do something good. But it was losing vitality, and an effective mechanism for self-criticism. The "movement" as conceived by its founders had been a failure. The drop-out rates are a little better, but not very much has changed. But I never heard Mechistas (and I was one of them) talking about the merits of the movement's founding; what was relevant and what could be changed? I heard there was an attempt to change this in the late 90s but that the group doing it was unable to agree. Well, it is time to try again. Here are two reasons I offer:

1) The language of the Plan is provocative, as it was intended to be. Still, the preamble calls for something absurd, the "self-determination of our community." What? This was a hip word back then, used by emerging nations in Africa and elsewhere as a break from European influence; the time has come to make our own destiny, it was thought. But "Our community" gains an identity throughout the document and this vague concept is deemed as "the only acceptable mandate for social and political action." The goal of the Chicano movement, the document states, is the self-determination of "el barrio and la colonia" ("el barrio" refers to a place whose inhabitants are poor and the borders are ambiguous, so it can mean either slum or neighborhood. Colonia is more organized, and it it closer to community.) What such a goal ignores is that the "community" is not uniform. Its people are not homogenized by their color or their poverty. What happens usually, as with many nations of Africa, is that one person or a small group defines what "self-determination" is and drags the whole "community" along.

2) There is a lot of criticism of everything and everyone but the barrio itself. The running assumption is that the barrio is the victim of capitalism, racism, other isms. However, the barrio also needs to change. In many poor communities what is taught most effectively is violence; the exposure to physical and psychological violence numbs the youth into accepting it. That is nothing to celebrate. Machismo is nothing to celebrate, yet barrios nurture it. The Plan does emphasize education, but it blames universities for not being accountable to the people. The criticism is misplaced. I think it begins with the people, the barrio. The "community" is comprised of individuals, and individuals are making the choices. We need to educate ourselves instead of blaming the capitalist who opened another Krispy Kreme around the corner. Everyone raises questions about why they are opening up in the poor neighborhoods. Such critics forget that no one is forced to buy their products; that if no one bought from them they would go out of business and leave.

Some of the things the Chicano Movement did was great. In calling attention to pressing problems in education it forced people to think. But we have forgotten that the intention of the Movement, at its core, was to get People of Color to think. Let's not forget that.

Elefante: Lo Que Andabamos Buscando

Elefante is a Spanish language soft rock band. I want to share one of their songs, "Lo Que Andabamos Buscando," which translates to "That which we were looking for." So, what were we looking for? Love.

Beautiful lyrics--and music. Here is an excerpt with a translation following.

No permitas que la vida lo haga a un lado,
que se pase de largo,
ni lo dejes olvidado en un rincón.
No permitas que el silencio te separe,
de sus besos de sus brazos,
solo deja que te toque el corazon.

Llevalo contigo,
sientate a su lado,
que el amor es justo lo que andabamos bucando...
Llevalo contigo,
tomalo del brazo,
que el amor es todo por lo que sigo soñando...

***
Don't allow life to push him aside,
to let him slide by,
forgotten in some corner.
Don't allow silence to separate you two,
from his kisses, from his embrace,
just let him touch your heart.

Take him with you,
sit beside him,
since that love is just what we were looking for...
Take him with you,
take him by the arm,
since that love is everything I dream for...

A note on translation: In Spanish articles are feminine or masculine. Love is masculine, and throughout the song Love has an identity. Instead of using "it," I chose to preserve this personality through the usage of "him."



If there is any lesson, it is cheesy: allow love near you, and don't push it away.

Diction Hides and Reveals

A (Bilingual) Education at Stake

At the Supreme Court: This past Monday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Horne V Flores, which relates to funding for ELL (English Language Learners) programs in Nogales, Arizona. The state is appealing a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals (which upheld a District Court ruling) that the state was not providing adequate funding for ELL.

The U.S. District Court had ruled that Arizona violated the EEOA because its funding system for ELLs was “arbitrary and capricious” and didn’t have a rational relationship to the cost of programs. Also at issue is whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, was correct in upholding the lower court’s decision that a law passed by the Arizona legislature in 2006 did not satisfy that lower court’s decision requiring the state to provide adequate funding for English-language learners. (Source.)

Benefits of a Bilingual Education: Recent research suggests that acquisition of languages is 1) very accessible to infants and 2) increases mental control. First, languages are composed of small units of sounds, or phonemes (like "p" and "d"). Infants, as they try to make sense of all the sounds they are encountering, quickly begin to differentiate phonemes. I won't go into more detail, but it is clear that children are very capable of learning one or more languages. What is of importance, are the benefits of multiple languages. For one, learning multiple languages increases executive functions, which "refers to higher-level cognitive abilities that enable an individual to successfully engage in independent goal-directed behavior."

[Executive functions] includes a number of higher mental abilities that allow us to control more basic ones, like attention and motor skills, in order to achieve a goal. They help us to plan for the future, focus our attention, and block out instinctive behaviours that would get in the way. Think of them as a form of mental control.(Source.)

The study found that bilingual babies were better at discerning and acting on changes in language; that is, they were able to change their reactions with changes in language. The study controlled for socioeconomic differences and does not make a statement about "higher" intelligence. "[The] only advantage [of bilingual babies] was in being able to suppress something they had already learned and update their predictions using new information. Listening to two languages from birth accelerates the development of this mental control. To [the researchers], these enhanced abilities are surely useful in allowing babies from bilingual households to separate their knowledge of two different languages without getting confused between them.

Languages in American Education: There is a general lack of encouragement for Americans students to learn a language other than English. To be sure, English is immensely important for civic participation, and all children should learn it, but languages in general are not in vogue in American classrooms. That in itself is a problem--that other languages are typically not taught well or encouraged. The reverse process, coming from another language to English, is even more flawed; there are few systematic efforts to get English learners to be fluent in English. Fluent enough for mainstream classes.

The debate at the Supreme Court is about funding. Funding is one element of resources, but funding alone will not make students fluent in English. Learning any language requires, 1) to memorize its words and syntax, 2) to speak it often in a safe place, 3) meaningful cultural connections, and 4) a teacher who can bring these elements together adequately. In addition, schools must be ready to commit moving English language learners out of stale language classes and into vibrant environments where the language can take form in their minds and lives.

A decade ago California did away with bilingual education. Lack of resources (primarily good teaching) is further compromising language programs overall. But the lack of initiative by schools to bring English learners up to par is frustrating. The research is out there. The resolve, however, continues to fall short. Ultimately, what is at stake for those who haven't learned English is their education as a whole, not just English. For them, therefore, the stakes are high.

(Image Source.)

On President Obama

The election of Barack Obama to the U.S. presidency sent ripples across the world. His election was historic, his task daunting, his performance thus far stellar.

His approach to governance acknowledges the difficulty of navigating opposing interests while maintaining a respect for principles. Most of his proposals--primarily his temporary expansion of government--has been backed by public support. In the arena of foreign affairs, he has stepped cautiously but decisively. Furthermore, he invited a real debate about the release of the memos on torture, which informed his decision. The thought he has put into governing is evident and very reassuring. Despite disagreeing with him at times, I believe he has brought a needed degree of transparency to the U.S. government and applaud him.

As he moves forward I hope to see his successes multiply.

Honesty in Embracing and Opposing Torture

A headline for a New York Times story today captures the root of disastrous policy-making: In Adopting Harsh Tactics, No Look at Past Use. Such an approach to policy appears to defy logic--particularly when Democrats and Republicans invoke past experiences (FDR or Reagan) to justify or oppose the stimulus plan or other legislation. In the making of decisions--as people and institutions--it is essential to understand not only the justification, but also the consequences. History plays a major role in understanding. The absence of understanding has catastrophic consequences--which are always unanticipated by those acting. This can be observed in the defensive stance taken by persons in the Bush administration who are scrambling to defend their authorization of torture.

The most disturbing thing is the lack of thought that went into the decision, and the lack of responsibility that has resulted. Those that argue that torture is necessary should stand by their beliefs. Sadly, however, we see the continued qualification of torture. Torture is relabeled as "enhanced interrogation techniques," as if using modern equipment or modern medical staff diminishes its unethical character. Those that defend torture manipulate language in the hope that adjectives and erudite synonyms will provide protection from moral and legal repudiation.

"I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process..." --Dick Cheney; bold mine.

What I advocate is honesty from leaders charged with exercising their best judgment. If after discussing the matter we decide that torture is the way to go, let us do it with a clean conscience. If, on the other hand, after discussing the matter we decide that such practices would compromise our values, let us unequivocally reject them. Because without values we--individuals and institutions--are not worth a whole lot.

I admire the courage of elected leaders who stick up for values and defend them. Senator Russ Feingold, for instance, made his position clear about the possibility of foregoing prosecutions. "I cannot join the president, or his spokesman, or [chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel, who said we aren't going [to prosecute these people]. I can't. I just disagree with them." In this instance, Senator Feilgold's position on torture is clear, and his reasons as well. If the conversations about authorizing torture had been open and invited similar honesty from all sides, there would be no controversy. The arguments against honesty is that national security is at stake, that there are state secrets reserved for the few. I'll argue that no such privilege exists in a democracy when 1) there is no official state of war (declared by Congress), and 2) when such action violates fundamental values of the United States of America.

Wrtiting and Academic Achievement

Ed Yong, from Not Exactly Rocket Science, shares the work of a Colorado professor who conducted a study about bolstering the confidence of under-performing students. Simple exercises in writing were found to affect a student's academic performance for the better. The group under study was asked to "write about a topic that they felt was important - from having good friends, to sense of humour, to musical ability - and why it mattered to them." The control group was asked to write about "something they felt was not important, and why it mattered to someone else." The group of students who were engaged in their own interests appear to have gained more confidence and retained it. Thus, the study is telling of how small changes in how teachers treat a student's intellectual capacity can have profound effects.

During the years of middle-school, all students tend to show a drop in performance, regardless of ethnic background. But Cohen found that black children who boosted their sense of integrity showed much shallower declines in GPA than their peers.

The findings support something quite simple: students learn best when they are protagonists in their education rather than spectators. Still, this finding has been around for a while and has not been employed powerfully.

Often we deem academic progress to be dependent on funding. If only we could get more money, the refrain goes. However, students are people, people who need the right kind of support. Money cannot guarantee that.

[My] Ignorance of Economics is Unacceptable

When I think about economics I cannot help but begin with small expressions of it: my mother's paycheck. A woman who works in a dry cleaners is trying to make money to support herself and those she cares for. She doesn't buy clothes very often. She cannot afford to go out to eat too often either. Yet, how is it that what she earns today will be worth less next year because of inflation?

I have been telling myself to learn more about economics for a while, but there has been little time and opportunity. (In actuality, that is an excuse.) Yet it is time that I do. Below is a video I found interesting as I begin this approach. But first let me say a bit about why learning this matters for anyone.

It matters that we learn the principles that run our economy--the forces that determine financial opportunities--because surrendering such responsibility is simply undemocratic. It breeds "experts" who get to decide for the rest of us. And their decisions are not always the best. Therefore, questions that get to the core of the issue are important. How does the government handle money? Seemingly unnecessary, the question is not irrelevant. The decisions made by the government about money will affect every American and financial institutions. The question is how. If we ignore our responsibility to remain informed and to voice our disagreement with plans and ideas, then we are implicitly surrendering our right to complain when things go wrong. More importantly, we won't know what to do when things go wrong, because we won't know how we got there.

The first element I'll begin to look at is inflation: how does it come about? Here is a video to get me started and a link the PDF referenced in the video. I'll sketch the principles/my answer later.

Diabetes Claims a Life Every 10 Seconds

My mother has diabetes. When first diagnosed, she rejected the notion that she had to take medicine for the rest of her life. She would throw away some of the medicine every time. I imagine my mother perceived it as a form of weakness: a woman who works in the fields from sun-up to sundown needing medicine at every meal? She did not understand diabetes. And neither did we, her children. She now takes her medicine all the time. It costs around $100 a month, but she knows it is worth it. It has been hard, but she had pried herself away from soda and unhealthy foods. By now we are aware of the possible consequences of not treating diabetes. An uncle who lives in a small, poor town in Mexico also has diabetes, and last year he lost one of his eyes to it.

In the United States, 9.2 % of those between 20 and 79 yrs. old have diabetes (this comes to around 19.2 million people). The percentage is expected to increase in the future. Currently it is the 12th leading cause of death worldwide. By 2030--if nothing changes--it will be the seventh leading cause of death worldwide. It is already among the top five killers in developing countries. In fact, 80% of the new cases in the next decade and a half will come from developing countries. This means that developing countries will need to be prepared. Such astonishing percentages caused, in part, the U.N. to adopt a resolution regarding diabetes.

Every ten seconds someone dies from diabetes complications. Diabetes can cause blindness, lead to amputations, cause kidney failure, cause sexual dysfunction, as well as other dangerous complications.

Today is not World Diabetes Day, that is November 14. But today people are struggling with this condition. Due to rapid changes in eating habits, many people from poor countries are at rick and contract diabetes. Thus, biological and environmental factor contribute to the spread of diabetes. As we go about our business we should remain cognizant of what our health and if we can we should encourage those we love to do the same.