Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Sep
30
The brains are not in Ohio: more evidence, this time from The Atlantic Monthly
Filed Under Politics | 6 Comments
You can’t make this stuff up, but then again, the article goes too hard on Cleveland, when you actually pause to think about the numbers.
From the article:
[In 1970], nationally, 11 percent of the population over twenty-five years old had a college degree, and that figure ranged between 9 percent and 13 percent in fully half of America’s 318 metropolitan regions. In Washington, D.C., 18 percent of the residents had finished college; in Cleveland, only 4 percent had finished.
Over the past three decades, the percentage of Americans holding a college degree has more than doubled, reaching 27 percent by 2004, but as the maps show, those gains have not been evenly spread. For instance, about half of the residents of Washington, D.C., and San Francisco now have college degrees – versus 14 percent and 11 percent in Cleveland and Detroit respectively.
Well, excuse me, but that would make it seem that Cleveland in fact has exceeded the national increase, no? Because that number was 4% in 1970 and 14% in 2004, a three and a half-fold increase. Wash, DC’s increase is less than three-fold (from 18% to 50%).
So I don’t quite get the point, beyond saying that there is a bigger concentration in fewer places. It sounds dramatic to point that out, but the numbers, proportionately, seem to be better for Cleveland. Sure, 14% still stinks – it’s certainly not 50%. But I don’t know – do we have to keep getting slammed, even when we are in fact making gains, faster than the country on average, and maybe better than some of the other metro regions?
I don’t actually understand completely this graphic display, but only Cincy is on it, not Cleveland. And, again, when it’s after 5pm, well – I wonder where my brain’s gone too.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:45 pm September 30th, 2006 in Politics | 6 Comments
Print This Post
Sep
30
The brains are not in Ohio: more evidence, this time from The Atlantic Monthly
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
You can’t make this stuff up, but then again, the article goes too hard on Cleveland, when you actually pause to think about the numbers.
From the article:
[In 1970], nationally, 11 percent of the population over twenty-five years old had a college degree, and that figure ranged between 9 percent and 13 percent in fully half of America’s 318 metropolitan regions. In Washington, D.C., 18 percent of the residents had finished college; in Cleveland, only 4 percent had finished.
Over the past three decades, the percentage of Americans holding a college degree has more than doubled, reaching 27 percent by 2004, but as the maps show, those gains have not been evenly spread. For instance, about half of the residents of Washington, D.C., and San Francisco now have college degrees – versus 14 percent and 11 percent in Cleveland and Detroit respectively.
Well, excuse me, but that would make it seem that Cleveland in fact has exceeded the national increase, no? Because that number was 4% in 1970 and 14% in 2004, a three and a half-fold increase. Wash, DC’s increase is less than three-fold (from 18% to 50%).
So I don’t quite get the point, beyond saying that there is a bigger concentration in fewer places. It sounds dramatic to point that out, but the numbers, proportionately, seem to be better for Cleveland. Sure, 14% still stinks – it’s certainly not 50%. But I don’t know – do we have to keep getting slammed, even when we are in fact making gains, faster than the country on average, and maybe better than some of the other metro regions?
I don’t actually understand completely this graphic display, but only Cincy is on it, not Cleveland. And, again, when it’s after 5pm, well – I wonder where my brain’s gone too.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:45 pm September 30th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Sep
30
Reason #39 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3
Filed Under Politics | 5 Comments
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right to do.
There are two ways to think about behavior here. First, there are behaviors made legal in which you shouldn’t engage anyway. Just because the law allows you to discriminate in certain circumstances, or get through campaign finance law loopholes or not pay people for overtime, doesn’t make any of those behaviors ethical, moral or even just okay – should you decide that you don’t really adhere to any particular moral or ethical code even of your own (though really, everyone has one, even if they don’t admit it or consciously refer to it).
Then, there are behaviors that we don’t make illegal that you shouldn’t do anyway: some states don’t require kids or adults to wear helmets in certain circumstances, not all states have laws about host responsibility in drunk driving situations, parents often are not held accountable for the acts of their minor children but is there much argument that the buck should stop with them?
The law is just that – a law, a statute, developed by humans based on human behavior we either want to encourage or discourage. By the time it comes around to be discussed by lawmakers, it’s probably well-entrenched enough that, ha, it’s gotten around to being discussed by lawmakers. Because, on the whole, most lawmakers, regardless of whether they’re in California or South Dakota, aren’t the most cutting edge folks when it comes to what’s going on re: risky behavior to be discouraged or philanthropic behavior that should be encouraged.
Bottom line: law, as a mechanism to control behavior, fails. If you don’t already know that something is right or wrong, providing a sanction for doing it through our legal system is unlikely to change your mind, with only a few exceptions. Think Michael Milken. He’s a very nice example of change. But look what he’s had to go through. Would you wish that on your worst enemy?
And so, with gambling, with slots, with convincing yourself that it’s all just entertainment even if you never come out ahead – even if it were 150% legal in all its forms with absolutely no restraints? Guess what? It would still be wrong to engage in because of the havoc and turbulence and devastation it can cause, beyond the six degrees of separation between the one making the wagers and everyone else in that individual’s life. That won’t change just by making it legal.
Same with prostitution, drugs, even numerous torts made by corporations and determined solely by case law. The problems those behaviors cause won’t evaporate through the messy magic of legislating or amending the constitution.
You teach your kids not to do something because it’s wrong, not because they’ll get caught or have some punishment levied against them.
Likewise with gambling: people should not engage in it because it is not good for people in general as an endeavor. Not because it’s legal or illegal.
Why then do I argue that it should remain out of the constitution and the law books as a legal activity – if I’m saying people should just be taught that it’s not a good thing to do?
Because, as I wrote above, the law stinks as a mechanism for giving that lesson. The law is too reactive and doesn’t serve well as a deterrent. To wit, all the types of gambling that does in fact exist, legally and illegally, in Ohio right now. I don’t want anymore, thank you.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote no on Issue 3.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:50 pm September 30th, 2006 in Politics | 5 Comments
Print This Post
Sep
30
Reason #39 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3
Filed Under Politics | 5 Comments
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right to do.
There are two ways to think about behavior here. First, there are behaviors made legal in which you shouldn’t engage anyway. Just because the law allows you to discriminate in certain circumstances, or get through campaign finance law loopholes or not pay people for overtime, doesn’t make any of those behaviors ethical, moral or even just okay – should you decide that you don’t really adhere to any particular moral or ethical code even of your own (though really, everyone has one, even if they don’t admit it or consciously refer to it).
Then, there are behaviors that we don’t make illegal that you shouldn’t do anyway: some states don’t require kids or adults to wear helmets in certain circumstances, not all states have laws about host responsibility in drunk driving situations, parents often are not held accountable for the acts of their minor children but is there much argument that the buck should stop with them?
The law is just that – a law, a statute, developed by humans based on human behavior we either want to encourage or discourage. By the time it comes around to be discussed by lawmakers, it’s probably well-entrenched enough that, ha, it’s gotten around to being discussed by lawmakers. Because, on the whole, most lawmakers, regardless of whether they’re in California or South Dakota, aren’t the most cutting edge folks when it comes to what’s going on re: risky behavior to be discouraged or philanthropic behavior that should be encouraged.
Bottom line: law, as a mechanism to control behavior, fails. If you don’t already know that something is right or wrong, providing a sanction for doing it through our legal system is unlikely to change your mind, with only a few exceptions. Think Michael Milken. He’s a very nice example of change. But look what he’s had to go through. Would you wish that on your worst enemy?
And so, with gambling, with slots, with convincing yourself that it’s all just entertainment even if you never come out ahead – even if it were 150% legal in all its forms with absolutely no restraints? Guess what? It would still be wrong to engage in because of the havoc and turbulence and devastation it can cause, beyond the six degrees of separation between the one making the wagers and everyone else in that individual’s life. That won’t change just by making it legal.
Same with prostitution, drugs, even numerous torts made by corporations and determined solely by case law. The problems those behaviors cause won’t evaporate through the messy magic of legislating or amending the constitution.
You teach your kids not to do something because it’s wrong, not because they’ll get caught or have some punishment levied against them.
Likewise with gambling: people should not engage in it because it is not good for people in general as an endeavor. Not because it’s legal or illegal.
Why then do I argue that it should remain out of the constitution and the law books as a legal activity – if I’m saying people should just be taught that it’s not a good thing to do?
Because, as I wrote above, the law stinks as a mechanism for giving that lesson. The law is too reactive and doesn’t serve well as a deterrent. To wit, all the types of gambling that does in fact exist, legally and illegally, in Ohio right now. I don’t want anymore, thank you.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote no on Issue 3.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:50 am September 30th, 2006 in Politics | 5 Comments
Print This Post
Sep
30
Reason #39 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right to do.
There are two ways to think about behavior here. First, there are behaviors made legal in which you shouldn’t engage anyway. Just because the law allows you to discriminate in certain circumstances, or get through campaign finance law loopholes or not pay people for overtime, doesn’t make any of those behaviors ethical, moral or even just okay – should you decide that you don’t really adhere to any particular moral or ethical code even of your own (though really, everyone has one, even if they don’t admit it or consciously refer to it).
Then, there are behaviors that we don’t make illegal that you shouldn’t do anyway: some states don’t require kids or adults to wear helmets in certain circumstances, not all states have laws about host responsibility in drunk driving situations, parents often are not held accountable for the acts of their minor children but is there much argument that the buck should stop with them?
The law is just that – a law, a statute, developed by humans based on human behavior we either want to encourage or discourage. By the time it comes around to be discussed by lawmakers, it’s probably well-entrenched enough that, ha, it’s gotten around to being discussed by lawmakers. Because, on the whole, most lawmakers, regardless of whether they’re in California or South Dakota, aren’t the most cutting edge folks when it comes to what’s going on re: risky behavior to be discouraged or philanthropic behavior that should be encouraged.
Bottom line: law, as a mechanism to control behavior, fails. If you don’t already know that something is right or wrong, providing a sanction for doing it through our legal system is unlikely to change your mind, with only a few exceptions. Think Michael Milken. He’s a very nice example of change. But look what he’s had to go through. Would you wish that on your worst enemy?
And so, with gambling, with slots, with convincing yourself that it’s all just entertainment even if you never come out ahead – even if it were 150% legal in all its forms with absolutely no restraints? Guess what? It would still be wrong to engage in because of the havoc and turbulence and devastation it can cause, beyond the six degrees of separation between the one making the wagers and everyone else in that individual’s life. That won’t change just by making it legal.
Same with prostitution, drugs, even numerous torts made by corporations and determined solely by case law. The problems those behaviors cause won’t evaporate through the messy magic of legislating or amending the constitution.
You teach your kids not to do something because it’s wrong, not because they’ll get caught or have some punishment levied against them.
Likewise with gambling: people should not engage in it because it is not good for people in general as an endeavor. Not because it’s legal or illegal.
Why then do I argue that it should remain out of the constitution and the law books as a legal activity – if I’m saying people should just be taught that it’s not a good thing to do?
Because, as I wrote above, the law stinks as a mechanism for giving that lesson. The law is too reactive and doesn’t serve well as a deterrent. To wit, all the types of gambling that does in fact exist, legally and illegally, in Ohio right now. I don’t want anymore, thank you.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote no on Issue 3.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:50 am September 30th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
