I'm pretty sure most of you feel as I do about the Miss America pageant: YAWN!

But that's not what I'm writing about. I'm writing about how dumb some of my fellow Americans are.

Nina Davuluri, a born-in-America Hindu with family roots in India, is being depicted in vicious posts and tweets as a Muslim, an Arab, and "probably a terrorist."

A lot of Americans view any male with dark skin wearing almost anything other than a hat as probably Muslim. After 9/11, many a Sikh was treated as a probable terrorist. Sikhism is a religion having nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. It's far more closely related to Hinduism. All Sikh men are expected to wear that headgear consisting of a cloth wrapped around their head which we often associate with India. Hindu men don't wear headgear as a rule, even if they are Muslim.

Davuluri was also criticized for her pride in her Indian heritage rather than her Americanism. Would these same idiots be so critical of a woman being proud of her English, Irish, French, or German ancestry? I don't think so.

How did we as a people become so dumb? Is it a function being citizens in the world's most powerful economy?

Tags: America, Davuluri, Miss, Nina, Pageant

Views: 627

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

H3xx's point was that funding for public education has been drained starting with Nixon and Reagan. Your point is that this is "leftist bullshit". Your point was refuted in that public higher education has been savagely cut. This ended the debate since Hexx obviously was not claiming all funding for all public education funding has been cut.

Okay,so somehow the cuts from 2008 to 2013--caused by decreases in revenue due to a severe recession--are somehow Nixon and Reagan cutting ALL education?

What the fuck?!?!

I've thrown out a TON of data here, from reputable sources.  I've conceded that there was indeed a cut to ONE sector of eductation (public higher) in the most recent five years, but I've also demonstrated the funding overall has skyrocketed... after you insisted that I consider all education, not just K-12.  Oh but when I do THAT you want to focus on public tertiary education over the last five years.

Can't have it both ways.

You just didn't like the answer I came up with and want to obsess over a recent drop to the one sector... and somehow blame it on Nixon.

But assuming what you say is correct it refutes your point: if the spending per pupil has no strong correlation on the quality of the education, then cutting it by 50% will not improve it. Here ends the debate.

Won't hurt it either.

Here ends the debate.

Indeed.  Until the next time you decide to obfuscate in the face of overwhelming statistics.

Okay, so somehow the cuts from 2008 to 2013--caused by decreases in revenue due to a severe recession--are somehow Nixon and Reagan cutting ALL education? What the fuck?!?!

No, that's you going shrill after losing the debate. The claim was that public education has been cut-- we've seen that it has-- and the process began with Nixon and Reagan shifting to loans in public higher education (among other actions taken by Reagan). This marked the beginning of the end of free public higher education.

I've conceded that there was indeed a cut to ONE sector of eductation (public higher) in the most recent five years, but I've also demonstrated the funding overall has skyrocketed... after you insisted that I consider all education, not just K-12.  Oh but when I do THAT you want to focus on public tertiary education over the last five years.

No, this is a euphemism for you acknowledging the cuts to public higher education in the last 5 years, but refusing to acknowledge that the end of mostly free public higher education (a process which began in the Nixon era) is a cut. A loan shifts the burden of paying for a college education onto the backs of the poor and middle class: it counts. Don't tell me it doesn't.

Gallup: But assuming what you say is correct it refutes your point: if the spending per pupil has no strong correlation on the quality of the education, then cutting it by 50% will not improve it. Here ends the debate. Steve: Won't hurt it either.

Right, Steve. So let's cut education funding by 100% per pupil and "not hurt" our way to better quality education.

*Laughing*

So now you're not trying to improve education by cutting it 50%? You're removing improvement from the equation altogether?

Nah. You just let the truth slip out. It's only about the cuts, as it always is with Republicans. The "better quality education" is the cover story, like "promoting inherent dignity" was the cover story for Paul Ryan's savage cut in Food Stamps for children, elderly and disabled Americans.

Indeed.  Until the next time you decide to obfuscate in the face of overwhelming statistics.

Read what I just wrote, read the stuff you write, and tell me I'm the one hiding my points in the obscure, unclear, and unintelligible.

Higher education

I expect (going in) that the dynamics will be somewhat different and far more complicated since there is direct government support of higher ed (e.g., public universities), government supported scholarships, and finally, the "skin" put into the education by the students themselves, either up front or via student loans.  Another complication is that universities have a second mission, and that is research; not every dollar that goes in is even nominally intended to educate.

Your two graphs show burgeoning tuition and decreasing state support for higher ed as percentages.  But that's not enough, actually to prove your case; for that we need dollar amounts.  Arizona cut state support 50+% over five years?  How many dollars was that?  From this graph, it could be ten dollars per student or ten thousand.

Tuition jumped 78.4% in Arizona over the same period?  How many dollars was that?  It could be ten thousand, or it could be ten.

If you pick the first alternative in both cases, you can't blame more than 0.1% of the tuition increase on cuts to state funding  If on the other hand, it's the second alternative, then you can not only blame the entire tuition hike on state cuts, you can even offer to pay students a stipend (European style) if the state would just restore the funding it cut.  (I really doubt this is the case; it would require huge increases in efficiency, not something government institutions are known for.)

I don't think either of these extremes is true, but I walked through that to show that because your data is presented as percentages of numbers we don't see, it doesn't actually show a connection, it merely suggests one.

So OK, this makes your case much, much better--The time span is the same (08-13) and it uses dollar amounts:

http://tcf.org/blog/detail/graph-as-state-funding-for-higher-educat...

It shows the dollar amounts and Arizona cut per student expenditures by somewhere between 7-8K and hiked tuition by somewhere between 4-5K.  It had the highest dollar amount tuition hike, but it looks like Washington (state) was just a whisker behind it.  Hawaii, Washington, and Alabama, meanwhile, had larger dollar amount cuts, implying that they were originally spending more per student.

In every single case, the rise in tuition was less than the cut in funding.  So complaints that public college tuition increases are due to cuts in the budgets for public higher education seem justified.

The article blames decreasing tax revenue during the economic downturn that started towards the end of Bush II.

But note this is public higher education, only a portion of all higher education, and a smaller portion of all education.

I'm interested to see what's up with other colleges as well, and in longer-term trends.

http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/publi...

(download table 2a)We see inflation-adjusted private/nonprofit tuition going from 10,378 dollars in 1972-3 to 29,056 dollars in 2012-3.

Public four year went from 2,225 to 8655, with a large part of the jump occuring in the last five years (confirming the above)--tuition and fees jumped 27% in those years.  However... the jump during the five years before THAT was even greater as a percentage (31%)!  Why?  Similar results for public two year institutions, a 24 percent jump during the last five years and a nineteen percent jump the five years before that.  We can't blame those 2002-2007 jumps, of similar size to the ones you highlighted, on the recession that hit in 2008!  I wonder what the government funding trend was.

That turns out to be harder to pin down for some reason, data for government support of higher ed pre 2008 is difficult to find.  But I eventuall found this:

http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=67&ye...

If you scroll down to the bottom, and click on the graph icon next to nation, you get a time graph of how much money state and local government kicked in per public college student.  From 2002 to 2008 it dipped then rose again, showing a net increase (the numbers are 5,960, 5756, 5920, 6393, 6785. and 7106.  I don't know if they are inflation adjusted.  But note: IN SPITE OF THIS INCREASE in state support, students got socked with percentage increases in tuition pretty much the same as they are facing now with *declining* state support.

So tuition goes up and up regardless of how much the system is being fed from the government end.  Why is that?  I have my speculations, but I will keep them to myself; they aren't germane, and you would just insult them.

OK let's put it all together.  This whole thing erupted when H3xx claimed that Nixon and Reagan had cut "education"--presumaby government spending on it, to include K-12 and College--and I called bullshit.  (I am not sure what the last five years has to do with that, but of course arguments evolve over time to encompass more and more.)

I've managed to show that Reagan and *probably* Nixon did NOT cut K-12 spending, not even adjusting for inflation, when measured on a per-pupil basis.  I've finally found a site that will show me TOTAL government (all levels) spending on total education.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1989USbn_14bc2n_2... shows you the federal and local breakdowns for 1989, the last year Reagan had influence on the budget.  (Note though that he didn't do much to influence STATE budgets).

Here is the 1989 number:  total spending on education $282.0B (all education levels, all governments) and here is the 1981 number:  $174.1B

Nixon left office in 1974. $81.4B
Nixon's first partial year in office was 1969  $50.9

These numbers are NOT adjusted for inflation.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl lets me adjust for inflation.

Converting to 2013 dollars, education spending in 1969 was $324.4B  In 1974, it was $386.2B

NIXON DID NOT CUT EDUCATION FUNDING.

1981's education spending in 2013 dollars, 447.9B
1989's education spending in 2013 dollars, 531.9B

REAGAN DID NOT CUT EDUCATION FUNDING.

NIXON DID NOT CUT EDUCATION FUNDING.

Yeah, he did, by expanding the Higher Education Opportunity Act which accelerated the shift away from free public higher education and toward non-free federal student loans.

REAGAN DID NOT CUT EDUCATION FUNDING.

Yeah, he did. He also expanded the Higher Education Opportunity Act-- doubling it in size-- and further accelerated the shift away from free public higher education and toward loan-based public higher education.

This is the "slow drain" in public education funding in favor of private (i.e. you pay yourself) funding that H3xx was talking about.

Your two graphs show burgeoning tuition and decreasing state support for higher ed as percentages.  But that's not enough, actually to prove your case; for that we need dollar amounts.

For that you need to click on the link I provided along with the tables.

...and if you had read what I wrote you would see I confirmed your point anyway.

Sorry, but I don't see how an increased inflation adjusted dollar amount can constitute a cut.

Sorry, but I don't see how an increased inflation adjusted dollar amount can constitute a cut.

It's the difference between "I'm giving you a college education" and "I'm loaning you a college education". Both are added to the budget under 'public higher education', but the latter comes out of your pocket (with interest) not Uncle Sam's pocket.

Consider also the City College of New York, the first free public university in the US, which was founded in 1847 with the words: "Open the doors to all… Let the children of the rich and the poor take their seats together and know of no distinction save that of industry, good conduct and intellect."

Admissions were based solely on academic merit for 129 years. It started charging tuition in 1976. This marked the beginning of a new age. Public education for the disadvantaged stopped being mostly free and started being mostly student loans which had to be paid back.

If you still don't see, then I really must question that you're genuinely trying to understand. It was a reference to how this "slow drain" from public education got started back in those years which triggered your initial denial.

I'm pretty sure most of you feel as I do about the Miss America pageant: YAWN!

It's a yawn in terms of entertainment value. In terms of the "scholarship contest" it purports to be, it's a transparent joke. The contest is based 75% on a woman's physical appearance and 25% on her personality (not her intellect or ability), but just 5% of the personality portion is made public.

Miss America is a 1920s relic of women-as-chattel pretending to respectability in a modern era. Let's call this substance-free beauty pageant for what it is: a "most fuckable girl" contest.

As if that wasn't crude enough, another racist pig on Fox "News" steps forward to announce his outrage, without irony or shame, that he'd rather fuck a white girl from Kansas than an Indian girl from New York.

How did we as a people become so dumb? Is it a function being citizens in the world's most powerful economy?

I don't think it's we as a people. I think it's certain (mostly white conservative) elements of American society. The judges did choose a non-white woman as the contest winner. Before 1970 non-white women weren't even allowed to enter the contest. Apparently they weren't fuckable enough until then.

-------------

Personal Interview (25%): In the personal interview portion of the competition each contestant converses with the judges on a variety of topics, from frivolous trivia to serious political and social issues. The contestant is awarded points for being well spoken, polite, articulate, and confident. This competition is less known by the general public than other aspects of the pageant, since unlike the other three, it does not take place on a theater stage, nor is it usually televised.

Talent (35%): In the Talent portion of the competition the contestant performs on stage before the judges and an audience. The most common talents are singing or dancing, but a variety of other talents may be exhibited at the contestant's choosing; some have demonstrated juggling, playing musical instruments, ventriloquism, quick-draw painting. The Talent portion of the competition counts for 35% of the contestant's overall score.

Lifestyle & Fitness in Swimsuit (15%): In the Swimsuit portion of the competition contestants walk on the stage in swimsuits and high-heeled shoes. The Miss America pageant regulates certain minimum standards of modesty the swimwear must comply with. Judging for this portion of the competition focuses on overall physical fitness, poise and posture.

Evening Wear (20%): In the Evening Wear portion of the competition, the contestants are judged on poise and bearing as they walk across the stage. The Evening Wear portion of the competition counts for 20% of the contestant's overall score.

Onstage Question (5%): During the Evening Wear competition the contestants are asked a random question from a pre-determined list that they must then answer onstage with no preparation. Questions are topical and usually involve current events. The questions require the contestant to have knowledge of the event and provide an opinion.

-------------

An Indian-American women winning the Miss America pageant is good for Indian-Americans but bad for Indian-American women. It means most Americans have gotten over their racism against Indians to the point that a brown woman (with white features, no doubt) can now be considered fuckable. Welcome to America, where trading misogyny for racism is seen as some sort of accomplishment.

Misogyny is the hatred of women. Could you expand on where the supposed "hate" is in this example? To recognize the beauty of Indian women doesn't strike me as hateful.

BTW, most Indians already have Western features, because they really are more Caucasian than East Asian if you trace their ancestry back far enough. 

If we as Westerners favor Western standards of beauty, surprise, surprise!

To take that a step further, we're related, and in many Red states, family members are definitely fuckable:

"The Indo-European languages are a family (or phylum) of several hundred related languages and dialects. There are about 439 languages and dialects, according to the 2009 Ethnologue estimate, about half (221) belonging to the Indo-Aryan subbranch. It includes most major current languages of Europe, the Iranian plateau, and Indian Subcontinent, and was also predominant in ancient Anatolia. With written attestations appearing since the Bronze Age in the form of the Anatolian languages and Mycenaean Greek, the Indo-European family is significant to the field of historical linguistics as possessing the second-longest recorded history, after the Afro-Asiatic family."

Interesting how concepts change - if we had a time machine, and could transport the uptight, paranoid, Republican, Bible-thumping concept of Red states back to the Mccarthy era, it wouldn't play too well.

Try not to get caught up in simplified, literal definitions. Misogyny is often used to mean more than hatred or dislike of women. It can be manifested as sexual discrimination, sexual objectification, sexual and physical violence, or the denigration of women. Misogyny can be applied to concepts, objects, symbols, actions, and people of other sexes or genders, when such a person is 'read' as feminine. Think of it as the disdain for the feminine or the support of things which harm women.

RSS

  

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 28 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service