It is a rainy Friday evening as I sit in the Connecticut Convention Center in Hartford. The Pledge of Allegiance and the prayers have been made, the convention has been called to order, but mostly delegates just spend time talking with one another. There isn't much suspence at this convention, instead, a chance for friends to reconnect and to talk about various coming elections.
I've been wearing my Google Glass which has been a good topic of discussion. Congressman Jim Himes tried them on, and the folks at the Kevin Lembo nerd table found the glass to be particularly nerdy. Unforunately, for some reason, low batteries, heavy network traffic, or the latest upgrade has caused Glass to be very slow.
After the nominating speeches for Gov. Malloy, they started playing a video. Almost no one seems to be paying attention.
It has been a while since I live blogged a convention, but I hope to have additional updates through out the day.
UPDATE 6:10 - I streamed some of Gov. Malloy's acceptance speech via Google Glass, after recharging it and then rebooting it. They are now nominating Nancy Wyman for Lt. Gov. and I'm recharging Glass a little bit more.
Recently, Gallup published a poll saying Half in Illinois and Connecticut Want to Move Elsewhere. This has garnered a few different responses.
The New Haven Register put it as Nutmeggers say higher taxes, cost of living forcing them to rethink living in Connecticut. They lead with
A lot of Connecticut folks are thinking seriously about moving out of state…
However, that does not appear to be what the Gallup poll is really saying. The question that Gallup asked was
Regardless of whether you will move, if you had the opportunity, would you like to move to another state, or would you rather remain in your current state?
Depending on my mood when asked that question, there is a good chance that I’d say I would like to move. If I had the opportunity to live comfortably in a nice house on Cape Cod, I’d probably move pretty quickly. Of course, that is very different from thinking seriously about moving out of the state.
In fact, when you look at the subsequent Gallup question of whether someone is even somewhat likely to move within the next twelve months, the 49% drops down to 16%, dropping Connecticut from being number two to just barely making the top ten.
The Register then gets its spin on the poll from the organization that lobbies for businesses in Connecticut.
There are a bunch of reasons, but cost of living and the cost of doing business are big ones, according to two state economists.
“Anecdotally I hear about taxes and the high cost of living and cheaper living in other places,” said Peter Gioia, vice president and economist for the Connecticut Business and Industry Association. “Some of it’s from business people; some of it’s from non-business people.
When we look at the data from the poll, however, we find very different data. In fact, nationwide, 31% of people planning to move within the next 12 months is work or business related. In Connecticut, it is only 21%. Instead, people are looking to move from Connecticut because of quality of life and cost of living reasons.
The poll does not give more detailed information about this, so I looked at some other data. According to the U.S. Census, Connecticut has the fourth most expensive housing in the nation for home owners and the seventh most expensive housing for renters. So, if people are interested in keeping people in Connecticut, perhaps we need more affordable housing. Yet I suspect that the many of the people who are concerned about the cost of living are also concerned that their property values don’t get driven down by more affordable housing in the state.
The Register article also quotes Republican Candidate for Governor, Tom Foley, saying, “I am disappointed, but not surprised, because people are attracted to places where they see opportunity and can feel optimistic”
This, of course, begs the question of opportunities to do what? Some people may be attracted to the opportunity to make a lot of money and buy a lot of stuff, but others may be more interested in opportunities to enjoy life and nature and help those around them.
I don’t expect to move to Cape Cod any time soon, there are still too many opportunities to help people around me here in Connecticut, opportunities that Mr. Foley seems not to focus on.
In his column a couple days ago, Colin McEnroe writes about the Doug Glanville article in The Atlantic, I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway. Colin asks if this was ”Cops Doing Their Job? Or Profiling?”
Colin, along with people who commented on the column, both on the Courant’s website, and on social media sites like Facebook raise some interesting questions. At what point does an officer reacting to a complaint and attempting to enforce an ill-considered law cross over into racial profiling? If the officer was just reacting to a complaint by a citizen, wasn’t he just doing his job? Unfortunately, the ‘just doing my job defense doesn’t always stand up, particularly if it is reinforcing some injustice.
Perhaps the bigger questions start with how much of a reaction is appropriate, independent of whether or not it is called profiling? Instead of talking about profiling we need to be exploring how each one of us contributes to, benefits from, and is damaged by unexplored expectations about the people around us based on their age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and other factors.
Perhaps we need to explore how these unexplored expectations fit into laws, rules, regulations, and ways that our institutions operate that benefit one group of people and the expense of another group of people.
Reconnecting Diversity: Cultural Competency in Politics, The Social Contract, The Social Network and The Body of ChristSubmitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 04/09/2014 - 02:27
It is National Public Health Week. On Monday, I went to a ‘Lunch and Learn’ discussion on Cultural Competency in health care. I came away with a lot of great things to think about.
For Christians in the Western tradition, Catholics and Protestants, next week is Holy Week. On Sunday, we will celebrate Palm Sunday and Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem. Episcopalians also call this The Sunday of the Passion. Not only do we celebrate Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, but we recall how the jubilant crowd, stirred up by the religious leaders, shout “crucify him” just days later and how this relates to our own lives.
Recently, the CEO of Mozilla stepped down after an online crowd shouted out about his political contribution to a group opposed to same sex marriage. Now, those who oppose same sex marriages are calling this a blow to free speech. Perhaps all of this is connected.
First, let’s talk about freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court considers spending money on political campaigns speech, and believes that billionaires have the right to speak thousands or millions of times more loudly than average citizens. The Koch brothers are taking advantage of this to make sure that their views are widely heard, a privilege the rest of us don’t have. Democrats have responded by highlighting how the Koch brothers make their money and the impact it has had on communities where the Koch brothers are spreading their message. Like with the stepping down of the CEO of Mozilla, conservatives are saying this is an attack on Free Speech.
In other words, they imply that free speech applies to them when they present their viewpoints, but not to others who criticize their viewpoints. It gets to the basic issues of any of our freedoms. Where do our freedoms end and another’s begin? What sort of responsibility comes with our freedoms?
Brendan Eich used his freedom of speech in contributing to a group that opposed same sex marriage. Supporters of same sex marriage used their free speech in highlighting this and calling for Eich to step down. When Eich did step down, opponents of same sex marriage used their free speech to complain about this. It’s all good, right?
We see similar things playing out with Hobby Lobby which is trying to avoid having to provide women coverage for contraception on religious grounds, even though they invest their employees’ retirement funds in companies that make this contraception. Others are encouraging people to avoid shopping at Hobby Lobby.
In fact, whether we think about it or not, we are all engaged in daily interactions around our beliefs, freedoms and wellbeing. It is the social contract. Here, I’m using the idea more broadly than just the Jeffersonian argument that governments derive their power from the people. All institutions do, including corporations and to a certain extent, event religious institutions.
We all make choices based on what we believe is in our best interests, as we cling to our lives and liberties and pursue happiness. This is where cultural competency and connecting diversity comes in. There are some that seek ideological purity, trying to avoid contamination of ideas from the outside. It may be simply living in some sort of religious ghetto as immigrants did when first coming to the United States. It may be religious groups that cut themselves off from the outside world, like the Amish, or like some religious cults. It may be the avoidance of diversity by people with certain political beliefs who distrust immigrants, people of different racial, ethnic, or religious backgrounds. Such beliefs taken to the extreme can result in holocausts or genocides.
The social fabric of our lives are changing and challenge our thoughts about the social contracts we’ve formed. We now join social networks where we can connect with a much more diverse group or people, or build our filter bubble and only befriend those with similar beliefs. We can make our shopping decisions based on whether or not people share these beliefs. We can clamor for the head of an organization to step down or complain about others clamoring that way. Is it all good?
How does this relate to cultural competency and connecting to diversity? How does this relate to Holy Week? In various places in the New Testament, Christians are told they are the body of Christ and reminded to embrace the differences that different members or parts of the body bring.
On The Sunday of The Passion, we remember how the crowds clamored for the destruction of the body of Christ. Perhaps we are doing this still today as we build walls and disconnect from those with different beliefs and backgrounds.
Last Sunday, the lectionary had the lesson about the death of Lazarus. The priest at the church I attend spoke about how ugly death is, about the stench of death. In modern American funeral homes, we’ve hidden that ugliness behind flowers and platitudes. She spoke about how important it is to face the ugliness of death so that we can more fully appreciate the resurrection.
Perhaps there is something similar as we think about our social networks and the larger body of Christ. As we shout “crucify him” about people whose beliefs differ from our own, as we tear apart our social networks, damage our social contracts, and tear apart any sort of body of believers we are part of, let’s look for resurrection and the opportunity to reconnect with diversity.
When I ran for State Representative, I often spoke out against standardized testing. For me, and my family, it hasn’t been a big issue. We’ve always done very well on standardized tests. They have not hurt us, in fact, if anything, they’ve most likely helped us, getting us educational opportunities we wouldn’t have gotten if we didn’t test well.
Yet if we’ve been privileged by taking tests designed in a way that benefits us, it begs the question of whether others have been disadvantaged because of the same tests.
Back when it was just the SATs, it was easier to overlook this, and go along with the system. Yet when No Child Left Behind came along and it started affecting school districts, it became harder to gloss over the impact standardized testing was beginning to have.
Now, we are confronting Common Core and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, or SBAC tests. There is a lot of discussion going on about the pros and cons of Common Core and the SBAC tests. Friends are opting out of the tests and so we’ve had some family discussions about this as well.
While I am, at best, ambivalent about the SBAC tests, I always look for the teachable moments. What can my daughter learn by taking the test, even if it is flawed or inconsequential? It is good practice taking tests, in this case, using technology, a skill she is likely to need from time to time in the future.
On the other hand, might there be a more valuable teachable moment, in opting her out of the SBAC test? In search of this moment, I told her that if she wanted to be opted out of the SBAC test she should write a persuasive essay on why she believe she should be opted out. She put a lot of effort into this and with her permission, I’m sharing it on my blog. Based on this, it is our intention to opt our daughter out of the SBAC tests.
However, the teachable moment is not necessarily over. Let’s continue the discussion. What do you think? Should we opt our daughter out of SBAC? What do you think she should be doing while other students are taking SBAC? What other things should we consider?
Why I Shouldn’t Take The S.B.A.C.
I do not believe I should take the S.B.A.C. test because it accounts for nothing. It does not reflect on me or the school. Making my reasons clear in this essay will help teach me to stick up for what I believe is right. S.B.A.C. stands for Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium.
The results of this test will not will not reflect on the school or me. We are not going to get our scores back either. The Board of Directors is using students as test subjects to see if they should keep using the test. I believe that there would be better ways to develop a good test than by someone who doesn’t know the students making it up and putting pressure on teachers to make sure students do well.
If I opt out of the test it will help me learn to stand up for what I believe is right. I do not believe that S.B.A.C. is a good thing because it seems to be taking away from school time that would be better if we studied something else. I will be taking the test on the IPads which will be much harder than a computer or a pencil and paper. It will be a much harder test then C.M.T.’s. I have heard that teachers might be fired if students don’t do well on the test, and this isn’t fair.
Yes, it will be good practice for the future, but it is taking away valuable learning time away from us. It is a test that I believe will take four weeks, not to mention all the practices we have to do. Mu teacher has been working on poetry with us, which I am enjoying very much, but because of S.B.A.C. we will not be able to finish our unit. He also turned down a chance for the Lieutenant Governor to come in and talk to us because he is trying to give us more time for digital storytelling before S.B.A.C.. He seems very stressed out about the tests, and has been taking his stress out on us students. It is hard to learn when everyone is so stressed out.
For these reasons I believe that I should not take the S.B.A.C. Tests. They don’t account for anything. It will help me to learn to stand up for what’s right. It takes away precious learning time. That is why I think I should opt out.