Sunday, April 24, 2005
Hillary Clinton Has A Big Head
Last Thursday, I went with Sam, Kevin, my parents, and my grandmother to the EMILY's List Majority Council Conference Dinner. If you're interested, you can read about EMILY's List here, but I'll provide a brief summary. Basically, they're a political action group whose goal is to get pro-choice, Democratic women elected to office in the United States. Don't worry - this isn't a political post.
I attended the dinner due to my father being a volunteer for EMILY's List. My dad is a lawyer by trade. He's been a lawyer for, oh, about thirty years now. Not only that, but he's a patent and communications lawyer. I've joked that his job is "helping the rich get richer", and while that's not entirely true, he certainly isn't Mother Theresa in his professional life. But what's kind of funny is that "helping the rich get richer" is exactly counter to my dad's personal philosophy of how the world should be. He's a hard core liberal, a lifelong Democrat, and about as politically active and knowledgeable as anyone I know. (Of course, I'm biased.) He's involved at all levels of government, from the school board and county executives, all the way up to the Democratic National Party and the Presidential campaigns. Last year he gave more money than any reasonable human should to the DNC and Kerry-Edwards. That's not what I would choose to do with my money, but more power to him. He has his core beliefs, he's committed to them, and he's willing to make sacrifices on behalf of them. That's a big deal.
A few years ago, my dad was getting burnt out on being a lawyer. I think he was actually considering quitting, which somewhat surprised me. My parents aren't really extravagant, but they do like the comforts that my dad's profession affords them. My dad being a lawyer allowed my mom to go to school and then start her own acupuncture practice, and my parents tend to like to fly somewhere on a whim. So, I told my folks that I think they'd be a bit frustrated if my dad quit, but maybe he should consider working part-time. He liked that idea, and chose to work only four days a week. The fifth day, he decided to volunteer at EMILY's List. He loves it. I think he's been doing it for a couple of years now.
The next question is, "Why EMILY's List"? To be honest, I don't know. I think it's a pretty good place to meet chicks, but somehow I don't think that's my dad's goal. He's definitely a feminist, and before you think that means he's crazy, you should realize that feminism is the ridiculous idea that women are EQUAL to men, not superior. I know, pretty radical. And, before we get caught up in semantics (or revert to the affirmative action argument), it's really not the idea that men and women are identical, but rather that they should be afforded the same opportunities in life. Using that definition, I'd be willing to be that some of you are feminists. Gasp! Don't worry: I won't tell anyone.
At any rate, like I said, they're committed to getting pro-choice, Democratic women elected to public office. He feels passionately about abortion rights, and clearly is a Democrat, so good for him. I don't know if that's what I'd choose to dedicate my time to, but he seems to get an immense deal of satisfaction out of it. (As a side note, I've often brought up that such a narrow definition of who gets supported by EMILY's List is somewhat limiting. What about a pro-choice women who wasn't a Democrat? What about a pro-choice Democrat who was a feminist, but not a woman? I think it ends up being irrelevant because they never have enough money to go around anyways, so broadening their scope isn't necessary yet.) At any rate, he invited all of us to this dinner, at which the four female Democratic Senators who are up for re-election in 2006 would be speaking.
I've got to admit, it was pretty cool. The setting was quite intimate - at most there were 300 people there. Aside from the speakers (Dianne Feinstein of California, Maria Cantwell of Oregon, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Hillary Clinton of Illinois, I mean Arkansas, I mean New York), there were plenty of other muckety-mucks there. I believe the Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, was there, as well as a woman running for Governor of Georgia. Also, Betty Castor, who lost the race for Senator in Florida in 2004, and her daughter, Kathy Castor, who will be running for U.S. Representative in Florida, were there as well. So, that was all kind of impressive, to be surrounded by so many high-powered women.
I know what you're all thinking: Were they hot? Ha. Just kidding. But to answer your question, Kevin and I concluded that Maria Cantwell was probably the hottest Senator, in a MILF kind of way. Apparently Jennifer Granholm is a knockout, but I didn't see her. I know I just undermined everything I just said about women's rights, so let's get back to the task at hand.
The dinner was basically to celebrate the year that EMILY's List had, and to thank their supporters. I'm sure it was a fundraiser as well, but my dad paid for all the guests, so I don't know the details. (It's at least reassuring that my dad's redistributing some of that upper-class money, just like he plans to do with his tax cuts. He made more, but paid less in taxes this year than last year. Something's not right there.) All four Senators gave speeches, and the best part was that they were short. Well, that's not completely true - they're all excellent speakers, and they had some good political arguments, but it was nothing new or radical. They were very generous and seemingly level-headed, mostly talking about how thankful they were for EMILY's List's support.
The four Senators were set up on a little podium on the stage. They basically had a panel set up, as they planned to answer some questions after the speeches. When the dinner started, though, only three of the four women were present. You can guess who was late. We were reassured that Senator Clinton would be arriving shortly. Senator Feinstein was first, and talked for about five minutes. She was quite impressive - very polished and focused. I found her genuinely inspiring. She left right after her speech - I guess Senators really are busy. Who knew?
Hillary still wasn't there. Senator Cantwell spoke next. She was a little shaky - kind of quiet, and a little less assertive. Overall, she was decent, but not too amazing. It's her first term, so we'll have to give her a little time. (If she wins again, that is - she only won by 2,000 votes last time.) Cantwell's speech was a little shorter than Feinstein's.
Still no Hillary. Senator Stabenow started to speak, and I think she was that actual star of the night. She had a very genuine smile, and came across as completely natural. She gave the impression that she was legitimately honored to be there, and was still proud and excited to be a Senator. It was very easy to like her immediately. Her speech was also good and short, but maybe I liked it more because she seemed to likeable herself.
About halfway through Stabenow's speech, Hillary appeared (with her entourage) at one of the rear doors. Some of people turned to see her, and my first thought was "Wow, she's got a big head." Not like she was haughty or arrogant, but rather that her cranium was disproportionately large compared to the rest of her body. I think part of it was her "hair helmet" - she clearly had her standard hair style sprayed into place. But it's always a bit disconcerting to see such a metaphorically large figure, and realize that she's actually a physically small person. Her face usually dominates the images of her you see, but she's pretty tiny. I'd estimate she's no taller than 5'3".
So, Hillary, or rather, for consistency's sake, Senator Clinton, entered the room. Did I mention that she was chewing gum at the time? Practically, if she goes from event to event and shakes a billion hands, it makes sense that she'd chew gum to keep her breath fresh. But you'd imagine she'd have some lackey whose sole job it was to proffer his hand before she arrives at a function so that she can spit the gum out. (And then the lackey would sell the gum on eBay, of course.) At any rate, she sat down and waited for Senator Stabenow to finish.
When the time came, Hillary must have stuffed the gum in her cheek, because it was nowhere to be seen. She gave a fine speech, but the difference between her and Stabenow could not have been more stark. Stabenow was gleeful and buoyant and smiled all the time. Hillary had a scowl virtually the whole time she was there. Her remarks seemed sincere, and she was definitely well-spoken, articulate, and convincing, but her body language was a little off. I don't think she didn't want to be there; rather, I think that if you have to be "on" all the time, it gradually wears you down.
Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about Hillary either way. And I guess I'm one of the few - some love her, and many hate her, both for reasons that I've never completely understood. But she's not entirely humorless. While she was being introduced, the emcee for the evening said, "Senator Clinton will run for re-election in 2006, and who knows what after that." Hillary was reviewing her notes at the time, but when the emcee said that, she looked up, with her eyes to the ceiling, and kind of bobbed her head back and forth pretending to look all innocent. Definitely very amusing.
That topic interests me in and of itself. It seems to be a foregone conclusion that she'll run. In fact, Republicans seem more convinced than Democrats do that she'll run, because it fits into the whole "The Clintons are evil megalomaniacs" theme that they seem to cling to so tightly. (That's the only way to justify the impeachment trial.) I'm not so convinced. Someone else made the point that she'd have an uphill battle, as 45% of the country starts out voting against her. That's definitely a good point. Why it so, I'm not sure. Maybe we need EMILY's List more than we know.
I attended the dinner due to my father being a volunteer for EMILY's List. My dad is a lawyer by trade. He's been a lawyer for, oh, about thirty years now. Not only that, but he's a patent and communications lawyer. I've joked that his job is "helping the rich get richer", and while that's not entirely true, he certainly isn't Mother Theresa in his professional life. But what's kind of funny is that "helping the rich get richer" is exactly counter to my dad's personal philosophy of how the world should be. He's a hard core liberal, a lifelong Democrat, and about as politically active and knowledgeable as anyone I know. (Of course, I'm biased.) He's involved at all levels of government, from the school board and county executives, all the way up to the Democratic National Party and the Presidential campaigns. Last year he gave more money than any reasonable human should to the DNC and Kerry-Edwards. That's not what I would choose to do with my money, but more power to him. He has his core beliefs, he's committed to them, and he's willing to make sacrifices on behalf of them. That's a big deal.
A few years ago, my dad was getting burnt out on being a lawyer. I think he was actually considering quitting, which somewhat surprised me. My parents aren't really extravagant, but they do like the comforts that my dad's profession affords them. My dad being a lawyer allowed my mom to go to school and then start her own acupuncture practice, and my parents tend to like to fly somewhere on a whim. So, I told my folks that I think they'd be a bit frustrated if my dad quit, but maybe he should consider working part-time. He liked that idea, and chose to work only four days a week. The fifth day, he decided to volunteer at EMILY's List. He loves it. I think he's been doing it for a couple of years now.
The next question is, "Why EMILY's List"? To be honest, I don't know. I think it's a pretty good place to meet chicks, but somehow I don't think that's my dad's goal. He's definitely a feminist, and before you think that means he's crazy, you should realize that feminism is the ridiculous idea that women are EQUAL to men, not superior. I know, pretty radical. And, before we get caught up in semantics (or revert to the affirmative action argument), it's really not the idea that men and women are identical, but rather that they should be afforded the same opportunities in life. Using that definition, I'd be willing to be that some of you are feminists. Gasp! Don't worry: I won't tell anyone.
At any rate, like I said, they're committed to getting pro-choice, Democratic women elected to public office. He feels passionately about abortion rights, and clearly is a Democrat, so good for him. I don't know if that's what I'd choose to dedicate my time to, but he seems to get an immense deal of satisfaction out of it. (As a side note, I've often brought up that such a narrow definition of who gets supported by EMILY's List is somewhat limiting. What about a pro-choice women who wasn't a Democrat? What about a pro-choice Democrat who was a feminist, but not a woman? I think it ends up being irrelevant because they never have enough money to go around anyways, so broadening their scope isn't necessary yet.) At any rate, he invited all of us to this dinner, at which the four female Democratic Senators who are up for re-election in 2006 would be speaking.
I've got to admit, it was pretty cool. The setting was quite intimate - at most there were 300 people there. Aside from the speakers (Dianne Feinstein of California, Maria Cantwell of Oregon, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Hillary Clinton of Illinois, I mean Arkansas, I mean New York), there were plenty of other muckety-mucks there. I believe the Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, was there, as well as a woman running for Governor of Georgia. Also, Betty Castor, who lost the race for Senator in Florida in 2004, and her daughter, Kathy Castor, who will be running for U.S. Representative in Florida, were there as well. So, that was all kind of impressive, to be surrounded by so many high-powered women.
I know what you're all thinking: Were they hot? Ha. Just kidding. But to answer your question, Kevin and I concluded that Maria Cantwell was probably the hottest Senator, in a MILF kind of way. Apparently Jennifer Granholm is a knockout, but I didn't see her. I know I just undermined everything I just said about women's rights, so let's get back to the task at hand.
The dinner was basically to celebrate the year that EMILY's List had, and to thank their supporters. I'm sure it was a fundraiser as well, but my dad paid for all the guests, so I don't know the details. (It's at least reassuring that my dad's redistributing some of that upper-class money, just like he plans to do with his tax cuts. He made more, but paid less in taxes this year than last year. Something's not right there.) All four Senators gave speeches, and the best part was that they were short. Well, that's not completely true - they're all excellent speakers, and they had some good political arguments, but it was nothing new or radical. They were very generous and seemingly level-headed, mostly talking about how thankful they were for EMILY's List's support.
The four Senators were set up on a little podium on the stage. They basically had a panel set up, as they planned to answer some questions after the speeches. When the dinner started, though, only three of the four women were present. You can guess who was late. We were reassured that Senator Clinton would be arriving shortly. Senator Feinstein was first, and talked for about five minutes. She was quite impressive - very polished and focused. I found her genuinely inspiring. She left right after her speech - I guess Senators really are busy. Who knew?
Hillary still wasn't there. Senator Cantwell spoke next. She was a little shaky - kind of quiet, and a little less assertive. Overall, she was decent, but not too amazing. It's her first term, so we'll have to give her a little time. (If she wins again, that is - she only won by 2,000 votes last time.) Cantwell's speech was a little shorter than Feinstein's.
Still no Hillary. Senator Stabenow started to speak, and I think she was that actual star of the night. She had a very genuine smile, and came across as completely natural. She gave the impression that she was legitimately honored to be there, and was still proud and excited to be a Senator. It was very easy to like her immediately. Her speech was also good and short, but maybe I liked it more because she seemed to likeable herself.
About halfway through Stabenow's speech, Hillary appeared (with her entourage) at one of the rear doors. Some of people turned to see her, and my first thought was "Wow, she's got a big head." Not like she was haughty or arrogant, but rather that her cranium was disproportionately large compared to the rest of her body. I think part of it was her "hair helmet" - she clearly had her standard hair style sprayed into place. But it's always a bit disconcerting to see such a metaphorically large figure, and realize that she's actually a physically small person. Her face usually dominates the images of her you see, but she's pretty tiny. I'd estimate she's no taller than 5'3".
So, Hillary, or rather, for consistency's sake, Senator Clinton, entered the room. Did I mention that she was chewing gum at the time? Practically, if she goes from event to event and shakes a billion hands, it makes sense that she'd chew gum to keep her breath fresh. But you'd imagine she'd have some lackey whose sole job it was to proffer his hand before she arrives at a function so that she can spit the gum out. (And then the lackey would sell the gum on eBay, of course.) At any rate, she sat down and waited for Senator Stabenow to finish.
When the time came, Hillary must have stuffed the gum in her cheek, because it was nowhere to be seen. She gave a fine speech, but the difference between her and Stabenow could not have been more stark. Stabenow was gleeful and buoyant and smiled all the time. Hillary had a scowl virtually the whole time she was there. Her remarks seemed sincere, and she was definitely well-spoken, articulate, and convincing, but her body language was a little off. I don't think she didn't want to be there; rather, I think that if you have to be "on" all the time, it gradually wears you down.
Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about Hillary either way. And I guess I'm one of the few - some love her, and many hate her, both for reasons that I've never completely understood. But she's not entirely humorless. While she was being introduced, the emcee for the evening said, "Senator Clinton will run for re-election in 2006, and who knows what after that." Hillary was reviewing her notes at the time, but when the emcee said that, she looked up, with her eyes to the ceiling, and kind of bobbed her head back and forth pretending to look all innocent. Definitely very amusing.
That topic interests me in and of itself. It seems to be a foregone conclusion that she'll run. In fact, Republicans seem more convinced than Democrats do that she'll run, because it fits into the whole "The Clintons are evil megalomaniacs" theme that they seem to cling to so tightly. (That's the only way to justify the impeachment trial.) I'm not so convinced. Someone else made the point that she'd have an uphill battle, as 45% of the country starts out voting against her. That's definitely a good point. Why it so, I'm not sure. Maybe we need EMILY's List more than we know.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Little Metal Boxes
I just invested in another little metal box. I'm amassing quite the collection. Because I'm a geek, I think I'm addicted to such boxes. The smaller they are, the better. The more they do, the better. If they communicate wirelessly, or have a really nice screen, then fantastic!
My first metal box was my Palm V, which I got in college. It was kind of cool, especially since so few people had them, but I didn't really use it all that much. Mostly, I liked it because it was compact and I could play games on it, or take notes on it.
The second metal box I got was my digital camera, when I graduated college. Actually, my camera's so old that it's mostly plastic and not very little, but it was still quite cool at the time. I think it's 2.5 megapixels, and hardly zooms at all. A few years ago, for some event or another, I bought Sam an ELPH camera, which was about twelve times as cool. It's 3-4 megapixels, but is almost a third the size. Even by today's standards, it's relatively small. And, it's actually metal, which is way better than plastic.
My next little metal geek box was my MP3 player. One would think I'd have an iPod, but as a serious geek, I have a slight Apple aversion. Also, I got my MP3 player a bit before the iPod took off, so instead I have an Archos Jukebox, which holds 15 GB of music. It's a bit hefty, but is perfect for listening to music when working out, or in the car. I do wish it was a bit more iPod like, because it's a little clunky, but one of the perils of being an "early adopter" is that you usually get an inferior version of a technology. You also pay more, but to me, it's worth it to have the technology a bit sooner. What can I say - I'm an impatient fellow! I did get Sam an iPod mini last year, and it is pretty stylish. Maybe that's a good plan - get the earliest version of something for myself, and then later get the improved version for Sam...
Meanwhile, my Palm V quickly became obsolete, and so I got the Treo 600, which (to my dismay) doubles as a cell phone. Aside from the fact that it is a cell phone, it's pretty darn snazzy. I actually use the text messaging feature much more than I ever thought I would. One month I used 300 messages! I know it was 300, because I only get 100 free a month, and at 10 cents per extra message, that little oversight cost me 20 bucks. My Treo's a nice little combination of multiple technologies, although what it has in versatility, it lacks in quality. There's a crappy camera, a crappy speaker for playing MP3s, and of course the normal Palm functionality (including supporting some nifty games). I never use the camera , and rarely use the MP3 player, but it's nice to know I could if I really wanted to. Honestly, those features are better in concept than execution. The best aspect of it is probably the keyboard, which makes taking notes and sending text messages very simple.
A couple of years ago, Dan got me a Game Boy SP. I had a Game Boy as a kid (which was somewhat little, but definitely not metal), and this is a vast improvement. It beeps very nicely. The screen is fantastic. It's rechargeable and quite tiny. Admittedly, I don't take it everywhere, but it's great for trips. Of course, they've come out with some strange improvement on it that has two screens and a touch pad (and I think it's wireless as well), but it's not nearly as compact. What's a little more impressive is the new PlayStation Portable (PSP), which is almost like a mini DVD player. Still, it's quite hefty. I wonder if Sam wants one...heh heh.
My latest and greatest small metal box is my new XM2Go, which is a portable XM Radio receiver. It came with approximately a billion accessories, which is another key criterion for coolness. The more things you can plug into a device, the better. Normal "non-portable" XM Radio receivers are made for the car, or the home, and require the purchase of additional devices to allow them to move around. But this one came with a home adapter (so I could plug it into my stereo), as well as a car mount, and a mobile antenna and headphones. It's moderately small, and has a ton of features, including 5 hours of recording time. For once, I actually held off on getting a particular technology, so I think I have a pretty sexy version, for once. I do wonder if I'll ever use my MP3 player again.
So, for now, my little metal box craving has been sated. Honestly, I don't like having to carry around 5 different devices, and I can't imagine companies aren't moving more towards synergy. The designers of the Treo had the right idea, but we aren't quite far enough along technologically to integrate all of the devices into one metal brick that people would consider actually carrying around. But imagine how cool it would be to have one thing you could carry around that was a cell phone, MP3 player with at least 10 GB of space, 2-3 megapixel camera, XM radio receiver, and Game Boy. I think something like that is liable to appear soon, although the challenge in bringing it to market might be consolidating all of the standards or licensing the technologies from their respective owners. (You could imagine that XM, Nintendo, Sony, etc. would all want a piece of the pie.) But when they do make one, you can bet I'll have it first. It'll cost six thousand dollars, and weight fifteen pounds, but I'll have it first. And then they'll make a better, cheaper one.
My first metal box was my Palm V, which I got in college. It was kind of cool, especially since so few people had them, but I didn't really use it all that much. Mostly, I liked it because it was compact and I could play games on it, or take notes on it.
The second metal box I got was my digital camera, when I graduated college. Actually, my camera's so old that it's mostly plastic and not very little, but it was still quite cool at the time. I think it's 2.5 megapixels, and hardly zooms at all. A few years ago, for some event or another, I bought Sam an ELPH camera, which was about twelve times as cool. It's 3-4 megapixels, but is almost a third the size. Even by today's standards, it's relatively small. And, it's actually metal, which is way better than plastic.
My next little metal geek box was my MP3 player. One would think I'd have an iPod, but as a serious geek, I have a slight Apple aversion. Also, I got my MP3 player a bit before the iPod took off, so instead I have an Archos Jukebox, which holds 15 GB of music. It's a bit hefty, but is perfect for listening to music when working out, or in the car. I do wish it was a bit more iPod like, because it's a little clunky, but one of the perils of being an "early adopter" is that you usually get an inferior version of a technology. You also pay more, but to me, it's worth it to have the technology a bit sooner. What can I say - I'm an impatient fellow! I did get Sam an iPod mini last year, and it is pretty stylish. Maybe that's a good plan - get the earliest version of something for myself, and then later get the improved version for Sam...
Meanwhile, my Palm V quickly became obsolete, and so I got the Treo 600, which (to my dismay) doubles as a cell phone. Aside from the fact that it is a cell phone, it's pretty darn snazzy. I actually use the text messaging feature much more than I ever thought I would. One month I used 300 messages! I know it was 300, because I only get 100 free a month, and at 10 cents per extra message, that little oversight cost me 20 bucks. My Treo's a nice little combination of multiple technologies, although what it has in versatility, it lacks in quality. There's a crappy camera, a crappy speaker for playing MP3s, and of course the normal Palm functionality (including supporting some nifty games). I never use the camera , and rarely use the MP3 player, but it's nice to know I could if I really wanted to. Honestly, those features are better in concept than execution. The best aspect of it is probably the keyboard, which makes taking notes and sending text messages very simple.
A couple of years ago, Dan got me a Game Boy SP. I had a Game Boy as a kid (which was somewhat little, but definitely not metal), and this is a vast improvement. It beeps very nicely. The screen is fantastic. It's rechargeable and quite tiny. Admittedly, I don't take it everywhere, but it's great for trips. Of course, they've come out with some strange improvement on it that has two screens and a touch pad (and I think it's wireless as well), but it's not nearly as compact. What's a little more impressive is the new PlayStation Portable (PSP), which is almost like a mini DVD player. Still, it's quite hefty. I wonder if Sam wants one...heh heh.
My latest and greatest small metal box is my new XM2Go, which is a portable XM Radio receiver. It came with approximately a billion accessories, which is another key criterion for coolness. The more things you can plug into a device, the better. Normal "non-portable" XM Radio receivers are made for the car, or the home, and require the purchase of additional devices to allow them to move around. But this one came with a home adapter (so I could plug it into my stereo), as well as a car mount, and a mobile antenna and headphones. It's moderately small, and has a ton of features, including 5 hours of recording time. For once, I actually held off on getting a particular technology, so I think I have a pretty sexy version, for once. I do wonder if I'll ever use my MP3 player again.
So, for now, my little metal box craving has been sated. Honestly, I don't like having to carry around 5 different devices, and I can't imagine companies aren't moving more towards synergy. The designers of the Treo had the right idea, but we aren't quite far enough along technologically to integrate all of the devices into one metal brick that people would consider actually carrying around. But imagine how cool it would be to have one thing you could carry around that was a cell phone, MP3 player with at least 10 GB of space, 2-3 megapixel camera, XM radio receiver, and Game Boy. I think something like that is liable to appear soon, although the challenge in bringing it to market might be consolidating all of the standards or licensing the technologies from their respective owners. (You could imagine that XM, Nintendo, Sony, etc. would all want a piece of the pie.) But when they do make one, you can bet I'll have it first. It'll cost six thousand dollars, and weight fifteen pounds, but I'll have it first. And then they'll make a better, cheaper one.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
The Washington Elite
My last post certainly generated a lot of commentary. Woo! I guess I found out the secret to generating traffic: Pissing you all off.
Well, tough! I'm not going to piss you off this time. Sorry, I'm just too nice a guy. Instead, I'm going to discuss my excitement about the upcoming Washington Nationals' home opener.
So, as you probably know by now, the Montreal Expos moved to Washington this year, generating a whole lot of excitement from the city, which has been craving a team ever since the Senators left town some 30-odd years ago. The whole process of moving the team was excruciatingly long, starting maybe 2-3 years ago when it became obvious that the Expos needed to move, or they'd have to fold. The rest of the owners of the MLB bought the team, and then started looking for a city to which the Expos would relocate. The search lasted for at least a year, with Vegas, Portland, Monterey (Mexico) all in the running. During that time, each city put together their own arguments for why the team should come there. As part of that presentation, they started soliciting potential ownership groups, since if no one was going to buy the team after the relocation to a given city, well, the MLB would never choose that city.
I wasn't really interested in all the politics - I just wanted a team to come to DC. I've written before about the conflict I have with the Orioles, and while I'll always remain a fan, the potential of having a team in DC was quite tempting. At different points, I had all sorts of crazy ideas. Maybe I could convince OPNET to get a suite at the stadium! Maybe we could get a group together for box seats! Not knowing exactly how to get something like that done, though, I figured I should at least get started. At some point in time (I forget when, but I think it was early 2004), I searched on the web and found the site of the "Washington Baseball Club", a group that wanted to bring the team to DC and then become the owners. There was some spot to enter in an email address to be notified of season tickets and the like, so I figured what the hell, and went for it. I checked back periodically for updates, but there wasn't a whole lot there at the time. I knew it was kind of a long shot, but it required minimal effort. Plus, I couldn't find another other place to enter in my information, and no one knew anything about season tickets.
After it became apparent that the Expos were going to come to DC, things picked up a bit. Some time later, one of my friends at work mentioned that he had gotten an email (from MLB.com, I think) about signing up on some list for season tickets. I had gotten the same email, and figured that if he had gotten it, having not signed up on the Washington Baseball Club site, well, then I wasn't very special. He responded to the email, as did I, but nothing seemed to come of it.
Then, in November, I got an email from MLB saying that I had the opportunity to purchase season tickets because I was a part of their email list. I figured it was nothing really special - I kind of assumed I'd have a crack at season tickets, just like 20,000 other fans. For the next couple of weeks, I worked on getting a group of interested people together, and then I put down the deposit a few days before the deadline. We were allowed to rank our ticket preference by section, and so we went almost as high as we could. There were a few 90 dollar seats, which was a little crazy, so we didn't ask for those. But the next levels were 40, then 35, and then 30, so we requested those, in that order.
And we waited. And waited. They named the team the "Nationals". Fine. They were on their way. Fine. Then DC wouldn't build them a stadium. Not fine. Then they changed their minds. Fine again. It became official and they started moving into RFK (where the Redskins used to play, in downtown DC). Finally in January, I received an email, telling me that my invoice for the tickets was due. (For about $12,000, in case you're curious.) I looked at our seat assignment and I was flabbergasted. We were in section 214, row 1. Look here to really see the location. Essentially, it didn't get any better than that. We were thrilled!
Of course, after that was more waiting. The tickets finally arrived a couple of weeks ago. Just in time, considering that the home opener is this coming week. We divided up all the tickets, but as the organizer, I decided that I would get two (of our four ) tickets to the opener. When I was a part of an Orioles season ticket package (which not surprisingly has since disbanded), that's what that organizer did (except he took all four tickets), so I figured it was pretty fair.
In retrospect, it was more than fair. Now the Nationals are the hottest ticket in town. Check this out and you can see what some of those home opener seats are going for on eBay. Although, that doesn't quite tell the whole story, since I've heard that tickets are actually being scalped for upwards of $1200 per seat! Wow! It's gonna be pretty damn cool, and I'm quite fired up.
Much of the excitement is just due to having a team so close. Another piece of it is being part of history. The quality of our seats doesn't hurt either. But what's also cool is that apparently, we'll be hobknobbing with the "Washington Elite". Of course, at the first game, Bush will be throwing out the opening pitch (and I'll try not to boo - maybe I'll duct tape my mouth shut) (and that's if they even let me in, given that I'm a Democrat...maybe I shouldn't type that), and tons of Senators and Congressmen and other "important" people will be there. One of the guys in my ticket group sent out this article about all of the bigwigs that had to call in favors in order to try and get nice seats. Hey, how about doing things the old-fashioned way and getting on an email list?! Use a little finger grease, buddy! Won't they be surprised when they see they're sitting next to lil' ol me? I can just hear them now: "How'd that schmuck get those seats?" they'll say. "Who the hell is that guy?"
Heh heh heh. Washington Elite, indeed.
Well, tough! I'm not going to piss you off this time. Sorry, I'm just too nice a guy. Instead, I'm going to discuss my excitement about the upcoming Washington Nationals' home opener.
So, as you probably know by now, the Montreal Expos moved to Washington this year, generating a whole lot of excitement from the city, which has been craving a team ever since the Senators left town some 30-odd years ago. The whole process of moving the team was excruciatingly long, starting maybe 2-3 years ago when it became obvious that the Expos needed to move, or they'd have to fold. The rest of the owners of the MLB bought the team, and then started looking for a city to which the Expos would relocate. The search lasted for at least a year, with Vegas, Portland, Monterey (Mexico) all in the running. During that time, each city put together their own arguments for why the team should come there. As part of that presentation, they started soliciting potential ownership groups, since if no one was going to buy the team after the relocation to a given city, well, the MLB would never choose that city.
I wasn't really interested in all the politics - I just wanted a team to come to DC. I've written before about the conflict I have with the Orioles, and while I'll always remain a fan, the potential of having a team in DC was quite tempting. At different points, I had all sorts of crazy ideas. Maybe I could convince OPNET to get a suite at the stadium! Maybe we could get a group together for box seats! Not knowing exactly how to get something like that done, though, I figured I should at least get started. At some point in time (I forget when, but I think it was early 2004), I searched on the web and found the site of the "Washington Baseball Club", a group that wanted to bring the team to DC and then become the owners. There was some spot to enter in an email address to be notified of season tickets and the like, so I figured what the hell, and went for it. I checked back periodically for updates, but there wasn't a whole lot there at the time. I knew it was kind of a long shot, but it required minimal effort. Plus, I couldn't find another other place to enter in my information, and no one knew anything about season tickets.
After it became apparent that the Expos were going to come to DC, things picked up a bit. Some time later, one of my friends at work mentioned that he had gotten an email (from MLB.com, I think) about signing up on some list for season tickets. I had gotten the same email, and figured that if he had gotten it, having not signed up on the Washington Baseball Club site, well, then I wasn't very special. He responded to the email, as did I, but nothing seemed to come of it.
Then, in November, I got an email from MLB saying that I had the opportunity to purchase season tickets because I was a part of their email list. I figured it was nothing really special - I kind of assumed I'd have a crack at season tickets, just like 20,000 other fans. For the next couple of weeks, I worked on getting a group of interested people together, and then I put down the deposit a few days before the deadline. We were allowed to rank our ticket preference by section, and so we went almost as high as we could. There were a few 90 dollar seats, which was a little crazy, so we didn't ask for those. But the next levels were 40, then 35, and then 30, so we requested those, in that order.
And we waited. And waited. They named the team the "Nationals". Fine. They were on their way. Fine. Then DC wouldn't build them a stadium. Not fine. Then they changed their minds. Fine again. It became official and they started moving into RFK (where the Redskins used to play, in downtown DC). Finally in January, I received an email, telling me that my invoice for the tickets was due. (For about $12,000, in case you're curious.) I looked at our seat assignment and I was flabbergasted. We were in section 214, row 1. Look here to really see the location. Essentially, it didn't get any better than that. We were thrilled!
Of course, after that was more waiting. The tickets finally arrived a couple of weeks ago. Just in time, considering that the home opener is this coming week. We divided up all the tickets, but as the organizer, I decided that I would get two (of our four ) tickets to the opener. When I was a part of an Orioles season ticket package (which not surprisingly has since disbanded), that's what that organizer did (except he took all four tickets), so I figured it was pretty fair.
In retrospect, it was more than fair. Now the Nationals are the hottest ticket in town. Check this out and you can see what some of those home opener seats are going for on eBay. Although, that doesn't quite tell the whole story, since I've heard that tickets are actually being scalped for upwards of $1200 per seat! Wow! It's gonna be pretty damn cool, and I'm quite fired up.
Much of the excitement is just due to having a team so close. Another piece of it is being part of history. The quality of our seats doesn't hurt either. But what's also cool is that apparently, we'll be hobknobbing with the "Washington Elite". Of course, at the first game, Bush will be throwing out the opening pitch (and I'll try not to boo - maybe I'll duct tape my mouth shut) (and that's if they even let me in, given that I'm a Democrat...maybe I shouldn't type that), and tons of Senators and Congressmen and other "important" people will be there. One of the guys in my ticket group sent out this article about all of the bigwigs that had to call in favors in order to try and get nice seats. Hey, how about doing things the old-fashioned way and getting on an email list?! Use a little finger grease, buddy! Won't they be surprised when they see they're sitting next to lil' ol me? I can just hear them now: "How'd that schmuck get those seats?" they'll say. "Who the hell is that guy?"
Heh heh heh. Washington Elite, indeed.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
The Case for Affirmative Action
I've been reading a book called "Blink", by Malcolm Gladwell. It's pretty popular these days, and I can tell why: It's interesting and a great read. It's also very insightful. "Blink" is about human intuition, and as such it's subtitled "The power of thinking without thinking." At any rate, I'm not going to summarize the book, but I do highly recommend it. The reason I mention it is because it pointed me to a website that contains the "Implicit Association Test". It's relevant to the book because there's a chapter that discusses how some of our instincts (or implicit associations) can betray us.
So, the "Implicit Association Test" is quite interesting. It's an ongoing project conducted by Harvard that analyzes how your subconscious may make certain associations that you don't necessarily make consciously. The results are powerful and sometimes disturbing. Before proceeding, I urge you to go here and take a couple of the tests. In particular, take the "Race", "Weapons", or "Skin-tone" tests. It requires a bit of time, but the results are quite revealing. Go on...I'll wait.
You took the test. What happened? At any rate, most of the test have revealed that we have implicit, subconscious biases. This may sound a bit pedantic - we all know this, right? But it's interesting to see it formalized by a test, especially since we probably all consider ourselves pretty unbiased, and certainly not racist. So if the results betrayed your conscious beliefs, what does that mean? Are you a racist? No, I don't think so. But it may imply other things.
In "Blink", Gladwell argues that our instinctive reactions determine a lot of things. If we subconsciously feel a certain bias against particularly ethnic groups, it's very tough to suppress that in social interactions. It comes out in certain ways that you have to work very hard to control. Maybe you adopt a more closed posture when you meet black people. Maybe you smile less or make a little less eye contact. In turn, they might react differently as well. It's not intentional at all, but it's pretty hard work to suppress your instincts, even if you want to. One way is to be incredibly self-aware, but people like that are pretty unusual. Another method might be to change society all together.
Extrapolating from Gladwell, if you assume that these tests are pretty accurate, and that his assertions about instinct are true, I think this is a pretty strong case for affirmative action. Affirmative action rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Many people believe it's reverse discrimination. They'd like to think that everything should be merit-based, and that if you look at race at all, you're being racist, regardless of if you're benefiting a minority or not. But here's a compelling argument that says that we're not merit-based in America. That even the most open-minded, liberal, selfless person can be subject to their own biased subconscious.
I don't think you can dismiss the effects of this - if a significant percentage of Americans have a subconscious bias against certain ethnic groups, it's going to manifest itself in certain detrimental ways. And I'd argue that one of those ways would be those minorities being less "successful" in society - getting less schooling, earning less money, advancing less far in their careers. So it's up to us to combat this. How? Well, I think there are two ways.
The short-term solution is that we need to level the playing field. If society is (intentionally or not) making certain groups less apt to succeed, I think we have an obligation to compensate for that. Affirmative action seems like a good place to start. There are many different methods that one can use to compensate, and I'm certainly not advocating all of them. Certainly, such an approach must be implemented with good judgment and temperance. Maybe colleges and businesses should more actively recruit minorities. Maybe they should do community outreach. Maybe they can encourage more interaction between people of different backgrounds. Maybe they can make an effort to accept and/or promote more minorities. Maybe they should have quotas to assure that the demographics of their institution accurately reflects the demographics of the country. Regardless of what particular method is used, I think it's a moral imperative to assure that everyone gets a fair shake. And if they aren't getting a fair shake, then we need to compensate for that.
There definitely can be some problems with affirmative action. Why shouldn't business and colleges operate like a meritocracy? Well, I think one can argue that it's pretty difficult to define merit, especially if society subconsciously subverts certain groups' means of attaining even defining merit. It's pretty easy to see this from a selfish point of view, if you're a white kid who gets 1500 on his SATs, and instead of you a black kid who only gets 1400 gets in, and all other methods of evaluation are pretty similar. But if you take into account the inherent biases that the IAT reveals, well, you could make a pretty compelling argument that those accomplishments are at least equivalent, because of what the black kid has had to overcome in societal bias.
Another possible argument against affirmative action is that it's certainly possible that some schools or some businesses shouldn't necessarily exhibit the same demographic makeup as the rest of the country. Maybe some races are particularly adept at certain types of academic study, and are naturally drawn to those fields. Maybe men are more interested in certain businesses than women, and thus are more likely to be skilled businessmen in those sectors. There's a danger of being too politically correct, and just assuming that race or gender or whatever doesn't matter at all. It does matter. It does help define who a person is. And I don't have an easy answer for that. I don't think it's a black and white issue (no pun intended). There are shades of gray. But I do think it's tempting and somewhat lazy to just accept that things are the way they are solely because certain groups of people naturally have preferences or tendencies, and so we shouldn't waste our time trying to subvert them. Furthermore, I think if we don't counter those stereotypes, they just get reinforced, and even if less women than men want to enter the business world, for instance, just giving up on encouraging women to enter business will eventually make it very hard for ANY woman to succeed in business.
I think the short-term argument of compensation is decently compelling, but only approach it from an "equalizing" mindset does nothing to solve the problem in the long-term. However, I believe affirmative action also has long-term benefits. And, ultimately, any approach we would take should work toward the eventual goal of true minority representation in colleges and businesses. How does affirmative action achieve this? Because it causes people to be exposed to other cultures and races, instead of just living within their own demographic. In a truly diverse environment, unless your goal is to be completely isolated, you'll begin to meet and understand people from different backgrounds. And slowly but surely, I believe that as people share experiences with diverse people, they'll begin to eliminate those knee-jerk feelings that yield the type of results we see in the "IAT". Those implicit associations will slowly break down. It'll take a while, but it'll be worth it.
Critics of affirmative action claim that diversity for diversity's sake is meaningless. They claim it's just a liberal buzzword that really isn't a goal. If we're aiming for excellence, why shouldn't that itself be the only goal that matters? Well, once again, I'd argue that it's tougher to quantify excellence that people say, and that academic excellence isn't the only goal of a college. It's a bit of a stretch, but I'd also say that businesses that are truly concerned about their employees shouldn't have profits as their sole metric of excellence either.
Why is diversity important? Well, in college I think it's obvious. To be truly successful, I think you need to be intellectually open-minded. You need to embrace new ideas and approaches to problems. You need to be able to negotiate and discuss and engage with all sorts of people. Diversity in and of itself IS worthwhile to a college. For a business, I think you can make a similar argument, but it's a little less strong. Still, if you want to serve your customers better and enrich the lives of your employees, I think it's important to expose them to different types of people. Should you do this at the expense of other aspects? Maybe, maybe not. For private businesses, it should be up to them. Same for private universities. I'd argue that public universities should make such an effort as well - they have an obligation to serve ALL the citizens, and I think affirmative action does just that.
A little while ago, MIT's magazine "Tech Review" ran a few articles on their affirmative action policies with regards to women. It prompted quite a few letters in response from their alumni, and one of the responses to one of those letters was amazingly articulate and insightful. (It was written by Qian Z. Wang.)
"...Criticisms of MIT's diversity efforts amount to little more than a knee-jerk reaction to affirmative action. I do not share the view that excellence and diversity are somehow opposite sides in a zero-sum game. Over the years MIT has become increasingly diverse without diminishing in excellence. This is in part because in affirmative action the most excellent candidates are not the ones who are really affected. Rather it is the most marginal candidates who are likely to lose out.
"In calling for a pure meritocracy and judgments based solely on the content of one's character, I'm afraid [critics] delude themselves into thinking that there could possibly be such clear objectivity in the college entrance process. Would the content of one's character be best judged by an SAT score or seen more wholly in a GPA? The truth is, any evaluation of a human being is necessarily fraught with biases and unevenness. Should not overcoming hardships, inequalities, and even discrimination to just come close to MIT's standards count toward a candidate's merit and character, even though the College Board can assign no score to it?
"Finally, I find it odd that there exist men and women of science who credit biodiversity for our very survival yet seem to think cultural diversity a concept beneath contempt, conjured up by anti-merit elitists to undermine society. But even a cursory glance at human history shows that the most advanced civilization at every age was also its most diverse. In fact, the stagnation and decline of every great civilization is inevitably preceded by a shift toward a homogeneous monoculture.
"Diverse people bring new ideas and different perspectives, which are the essential ingredients of a robust culture. As our beloved Institute is already more narrowly focused than many of its peer institutions, the greatest threat to MIT's excellence is certainly not too much diversity, but too little of it."
Wow. If only I was as articulate, and as succinct. Sorry: I'm not.
The last opposition to affirmative action comes from our guts. We know we're not racist. (Despite what the IAT tells you.) It just doesn't "seem" fair. We like to think that success is entirely a product of hard work and intelligence, but that's not true. I think this approach is akin to closing your eyes and sticking your figure in your ears and screaming "la la la la". Until blacks earn as much as whites, until women hold as many positions of power as men, there's a problem we need to fix. You might argue that certain groups are less likely to succeed in society for whatever reasons, and it's not our problem. I'd argue that you are entirely wrong: The measure of a great society is how it takes care of its least well-off citizens. If our institutions have made it so that certain people are less likely to succeed simply because of the color of their skin or other attributes that should be irrelevant, then we need to fix our society.
So, the "Implicit Association Test" is quite interesting. It's an ongoing project conducted by Harvard that analyzes how your subconscious may make certain associations that you don't necessarily make consciously. The results are powerful and sometimes disturbing. Before proceeding, I urge you to go here and take a couple of the tests. In particular, take the "Race", "Weapons", or "Skin-tone" tests. It requires a bit of time, but the results are quite revealing. Go on...I'll wait.
You took the test. What happened? At any rate, most of the test have revealed that we have implicit, subconscious biases. This may sound a bit pedantic - we all know this, right? But it's interesting to see it formalized by a test, especially since we probably all consider ourselves pretty unbiased, and certainly not racist. So if the results betrayed your conscious beliefs, what does that mean? Are you a racist? No, I don't think so. But it may imply other things.
In "Blink", Gladwell argues that our instinctive reactions determine a lot of things. If we subconsciously feel a certain bias against particularly ethnic groups, it's very tough to suppress that in social interactions. It comes out in certain ways that you have to work very hard to control. Maybe you adopt a more closed posture when you meet black people. Maybe you smile less or make a little less eye contact. In turn, they might react differently as well. It's not intentional at all, but it's pretty hard work to suppress your instincts, even if you want to. One way is to be incredibly self-aware, but people like that are pretty unusual. Another method might be to change society all together.
Extrapolating from Gladwell, if you assume that these tests are pretty accurate, and that his assertions about instinct are true, I think this is a pretty strong case for affirmative action. Affirmative action rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Many people believe it's reverse discrimination. They'd like to think that everything should be merit-based, and that if you look at race at all, you're being racist, regardless of if you're benefiting a minority or not. But here's a compelling argument that says that we're not merit-based in America. That even the most open-minded, liberal, selfless person can be subject to their own biased subconscious.
I don't think you can dismiss the effects of this - if a significant percentage of Americans have a subconscious bias against certain ethnic groups, it's going to manifest itself in certain detrimental ways. And I'd argue that one of those ways would be those minorities being less "successful" in society - getting less schooling, earning less money, advancing less far in their careers. So it's up to us to combat this. How? Well, I think there are two ways.
The short-term solution is that we need to level the playing field. If society is (intentionally or not) making certain groups less apt to succeed, I think we have an obligation to compensate for that. Affirmative action seems like a good place to start. There are many different methods that one can use to compensate, and I'm certainly not advocating all of them. Certainly, such an approach must be implemented with good judgment and temperance. Maybe colleges and businesses should more actively recruit minorities. Maybe they should do community outreach. Maybe they can encourage more interaction between people of different backgrounds. Maybe they can make an effort to accept and/or promote more minorities. Maybe they should have quotas to assure that the demographics of their institution accurately reflects the demographics of the country. Regardless of what particular method is used, I think it's a moral imperative to assure that everyone gets a fair shake. And if they aren't getting a fair shake, then we need to compensate for that.
There definitely can be some problems with affirmative action. Why shouldn't business and colleges operate like a meritocracy? Well, I think one can argue that it's pretty difficult to define merit, especially if society subconsciously subverts certain groups' means of attaining even defining merit. It's pretty easy to see this from a selfish point of view, if you're a white kid who gets 1500 on his SATs, and instead of you a black kid who only gets 1400 gets in, and all other methods of evaluation are pretty similar. But if you take into account the inherent biases that the IAT reveals, well, you could make a pretty compelling argument that those accomplishments are at least equivalent, because of what the black kid has had to overcome in societal bias.
Another possible argument against affirmative action is that it's certainly possible that some schools or some businesses shouldn't necessarily exhibit the same demographic makeup as the rest of the country. Maybe some races are particularly adept at certain types of academic study, and are naturally drawn to those fields. Maybe men are more interested in certain businesses than women, and thus are more likely to be skilled businessmen in those sectors. There's a danger of being too politically correct, and just assuming that race or gender or whatever doesn't matter at all. It does matter. It does help define who a person is. And I don't have an easy answer for that. I don't think it's a black and white issue (no pun intended). There are shades of gray. But I do think it's tempting and somewhat lazy to just accept that things are the way they are solely because certain groups of people naturally have preferences or tendencies, and so we shouldn't waste our time trying to subvert them. Furthermore, I think if we don't counter those stereotypes, they just get reinforced, and even if less women than men want to enter the business world, for instance, just giving up on encouraging women to enter business will eventually make it very hard for ANY woman to succeed in business.
I think the short-term argument of compensation is decently compelling, but only approach it from an "equalizing" mindset does nothing to solve the problem in the long-term. However, I believe affirmative action also has long-term benefits. And, ultimately, any approach we would take should work toward the eventual goal of true minority representation in colleges and businesses. How does affirmative action achieve this? Because it causes people to be exposed to other cultures and races, instead of just living within their own demographic. In a truly diverse environment, unless your goal is to be completely isolated, you'll begin to meet and understand people from different backgrounds. And slowly but surely, I believe that as people share experiences with diverse people, they'll begin to eliminate those knee-jerk feelings that yield the type of results we see in the "IAT". Those implicit associations will slowly break down. It'll take a while, but it'll be worth it.
Critics of affirmative action claim that diversity for diversity's sake is meaningless. They claim it's just a liberal buzzword that really isn't a goal. If we're aiming for excellence, why shouldn't that itself be the only goal that matters? Well, once again, I'd argue that it's tougher to quantify excellence that people say, and that academic excellence isn't the only goal of a college. It's a bit of a stretch, but I'd also say that businesses that are truly concerned about their employees shouldn't have profits as their sole metric of excellence either.
Why is diversity important? Well, in college I think it's obvious. To be truly successful, I think you need to be intellectually open-minded. You need to embrace new ideas and approaches to problems. You need to be able to negotiate and discuss and engage with all sorts of people. Diversity in and of itself IS worthwhile to a college. For a business, I think you can make a similar argument, but it's a little less strong. Still, if you want to serve your customers better and enrich the lives of your employees, I think it's important to expose them to different types of people. Should you do this at the expense of other aspects? Maybe, maybe not. For private businesses, it should be up to them. Same for private universities. I'd argue that public universities should make such an effort as well - they have an obligation to serve ALL the citizens, and I think affirmative action does just that.
A little while ago, MIT's magazine "Tech Review" ran a few articles on their affirmative action policies with regards to women. It prompted quite a few letters in response from their alumni, and one of the responses to one of those letters was amazingly articulate and insightful. (It was written by Qian Z. Wang.)
"...Criticisms of MIT's diversity efforts amount to little more than a knee-jerk reaction to affirmative action. I do not share the view that excellence and diversity are somehow opposite sides in a zero-sum game. Over the years MIT has become increasingly diverse without diminishing in excellence. This is in part because in affirmative action the most excellent candidates are not the ones who are really affected. Rather it is the most marginal candidates who are likely to lose out.
"In calling for a pure meritocracy and judgments based solely on the content of one's character, I'm afraid [critics] delude themselves into thinking that there could possibly be such clear objectivity in the college entrance process. Would the content of one's character be best judged by an SAT score or seen more wholly in a GPA? The truth is, any evaluation of a human being is necessarily fraught with biases and unevenness. Should not overcoming hardships, inequalities, and even discrimination to just come close to MIT's standards count toward a candidate's merit and character, even though the College Board can assign no score to it?
"Finally, I find it odd that there exist men and women of science who credit biodiversity for our very survival yet seem to think cultural diversity a concept beneath contempt, conjured up by anti-merit elitists to undermine society. But even a cursory glance at human history shows that the most advanced civilization at every age was also its most diverse. In fact, the stagnation and decline of every great civilization is inevitably preceded by a shift toward a homogeneous monoculture.
"Diverse people bring new ideas and different perspectives, which are the essential ingredients of a robust culture. As our beloved Institute is already more narrowly focused than many of its peer institutions, the greatest threat to MIT's excellence is certainly not too much diversity, but too little of it."
Wow. If only I was as articulate, and as succinct. Sorry: I'm not.
The last opposition to affirmative action comes from our guts. We know we're not racist. (Despite what the IAT tells you.) It just doesn't "seem" fair. We like to think that success is entirely a product of hard work and intelligence, but that's not true. I think this approach is akin to closing your eyes and sticking your figure in your ears and screaming "la la la la". Until blacks earn as much as whites, until women hold as many positions of power as men, there's a problem we need to fix. You might argue that certain groups are less likely to succeed in society for whatever reasons, and it's not our problem. I'd argue that you are entirely wrong: The measure of a great society is how it takes care of its least well-off citizens. If our institutions have made it so that certain people are less likely to succeed simply because of the color of their skin or other attributes that should be irrelevant, then we need to fix our society.
