Columnist’s Opinion on US Presidential Election: Poverty is this election’s invisible issue

President Obama and Mitt Romney ignore the problem. For the sake of the poor, and the country, they need to take action.

4:59PM EST October 7. 2012 – Last week’s first presidential debate was largely about the economy, but I didn’t hear either President Obama or Mitt Romney say how they would help the poor.

Until recently, in fact, the poor have barely been an afterthought during this presidential campaign. A study released this month by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting found that news coverage of poverty from January through June comprised no more than 3% of election stories compared with the 18% that reported on the “debt” or “deficit.”

Then former governor Mitt Romney dragged the poor into the campaign with his inaccurate, sweeping indictment of the 47% of Americans who don’t pay federal income tax. (He admitted Thursday he was wrong.) But even that gaffe hasn’t prompted him or Obama to engage in a more substantive debate about poverty. We’ve heard precious little about how either candidate would help the 15% of Americans living below the poverty line. The latest Census figures show that 17 states saw an increase in poverty rates from 2010 to 2011.

Romney may assume that focusing on the poor will not win him votes. But a Pew Research Center poll this year showed that 57% of lower-income Republican voters say the government does not do enough for the poor.

Obama cannot take low-income voters for granted, either. They might not show up at the polls for him as they did in 2008. The poor, like many in the middle class, are hurting, and many blame the president for not doing more to address poverty, pump up the economy and create more jobs.

Many people hurting

“We knew that the old permanent poor were catching hell, but it was the new middle class that hit us hard,” said Princeton professor Cornel West when I interviewed him and PBS talk show host Tavis Smiley during their “Poverty Tour 2.0” in September. “(We’ve seen) folks who had been making $150,000 a year and (were now) living in their cars.”

The progressive think tank Center for American Progress found that from 2001 to 2007, profits and productivity went up but poverty increased. During the past three years, the poverty rate hasn’t improved and middle-class income has declined.

“Poverty is threatening our democracy, our very way of life,” Smiley said. “This is an American catastrophe.”

The conservative Heritage Foundation doesn’t think so. It published research this summer that suggested the federal definition of being poor should be changed. The study questioned whether families have a place to live, aren’t hungry and enjoy various amenities — refrigerators, microwaves, televisions, air conditioning — are actually impoverished.

But amenities, which can be gifts, second-hand purchases or rented, don’t reflect financial stability or a safe environment. As for hunger, it can be quelled by inexpensive, unhealthy foods. And merely having a place to call home doesn’t mean the living conditions are healthy or safe.

Income equality Instead of poverty, Obama and Romney have dueled over the tax rates of the wealthy and middle class — as they did Wednesday night — often packaged as a debate about income inequality. Obama has called it “the defining issue of our time.” Though it certainly matters to the middle class, and arguably is integral to the nation’s overall economic health, it hardly seems “defining” when one in seven Americans are suffering at or below the poverty level. Romney dismissed the income inequality debate as more of the “politics of envy,” a canard that ignores the huge income disparities and stark distinctions in the financial realities of those he cavalierly calls the makers and takers.

Both campaigns need to pledge to move beyond political rhetoric and help the poor through government programs and by fostering entrepreneurship through microloans, training and partnerships with businesses, churches and non-profits.

What troubles me is if Romney is elected president because he has said that he isn’t “concerned about the very poor.” And if Obama wins, the former community organizer for the needy has said the middle class is priority No. 1. What we need in these tough economic times is leadership for all the people.

So who will speak for the poor?

Interesting read on how teachers can embrace social media in education

A Teacher’s Guide To Social Media [INFOGRAPHIC]

By Shea Bennett on July 27, 2012 3:45 PM

Did you know that two thirds of education faculties have used some form of social media during a class? YouTube leads the way, ahead of Facebook and LinkedIn, with Twitter getting a surprisingly low amount of attention.

Overall, some 90 percent of educators have used social media in the classroom or for their professional careers, and it’s not just the young and trendy teachers, either – faculty that have been teaching for 20 years are just as aware of social media as other educators.

This infographic from Online Colleges presents a teacher’s guide to social media, which includes some tips on using the major social platforms in the classroom, including Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and YouTube.

How Classrooms Can Excel Using the Latest Technology and Social Media

Adapted from: http://www.socialnomics.net/2012/09/30/how-classrooms-can-excel-using-the-latest-technology-and-social-media/

Living in a city where there is a sea of college students, I see more technological gadgets on these young students than sometimes even on adults. They have iPads in the classroom to take notes on, read their books on, and more. However it’s not just technology that’s advancing in the classroom it’s also the acceptance and usage of social media. There are many colleges that demonstrate adaptation and skill in using social successfully to teach students. So what are the benefits of using new technology and social media? Here are three reasons why your classroom should consider the same…

1. Use the technology and Networks They Already Use and Know

Students are already posting on Facebook, reading blogs on Tumblr, tweeting their favorite things on Twitter, and pinning what they love on Pinterest. They know how to use the sites well, and they use it often. Make part of the class participation online participation. It helps those who are creative but perhaps shy in class. For example homework can include keeping a Tumblr blog about a topic which students can comment on and share ideas on. Or if it’s a photography class, how about utilizing Instagram or again Tumblr to host that content. Tip: find the networks that work best for your lesson content (and students).

2. Integrate With Lesson Plans and Learnings

The infographic demonstrates that professors and teachers are already adapting, andeven shows the networks where they can utilize to make their efforts more fruitful with their students. It’s not just about using Facebook and Twitter, but realizing that you can create a wiki for the class and online discussion, and/or pin daily findings on a Pinterest board. There are numerous ways to take advantage, it’s about creating the lesson plan that works for you and your students creativity and desire to engage with the content in places they love interacting. Some students may be hesitant to use their own profiles that already exist – so perhaps create new ones just for class or a location where they can all contribute.

3. Continue and Extend the Conversation Past the Classroom

It is a great opportunity to extend conversation past the classroom. Take the offline, online. For example creating a hashtag for the classroom to corral conversation and extend a topic that was discussed in class, after class has ended. It keeps the students thinking, searching, reading, and interacting with the content.

Last Tip: Remember to  keep content and tools fresh. As we all are well aware, tools and social networks, and apps change, update, and pop up daily. It is tough to keep up but we have to. Perhaps utilize students who work for the school to keep up on the research regarding what’s the latest to help keep lesson plans fresh.

There is far too much money in sport. What do you think and why?

Adapted from: http://gpessays.com/sports/there-is-far-too-much-money-in-sport-what-do-you-think-and-why

Spectator sports were once defined by the close-knit nature of teams, the tenacity of the competition and the exhilaration of the victory, and the essence of fair play—playing for the sake of playing, not winning. In the 21st century, however, the spectator sport sector has become one of the largest grossing businesses in the world, with almost every large firm, regardless of industry, involves in matters ranging from the ownership of sports teams or even entire leagues to the sponsorship of competitions. Sports has become a field where money can buy talent and where winning is everything because winning generates still more money. IT is tragic that the essence of team sport has been distorted by the buying and selling of athletes and that a modern-day sports team is nothing but a group of money-hungry individuals who have little in common except the compulsion to win—for more prize money.

The definition of competitive sports has been distorted by the injection of money into the system. Earlier, prize winnings were measly sums of money that barely supported players and were more a side benefit to the general satisfaction of being a sports person. Jesse Owens, the legendary American sprinter, ran barefoot at the 1936 Olympics in Hitler’s Germany and despite winning an unprecedented number of gold medals maintained a down-to-earth lifestyle and personality that enhanced people’s respect for him. In stark contrast, athletes today, such as English footballer David Beckham, receive outrageous amount of money for doing little more than looking good on the filed. Endorsement contracts, club paycheck and benefits all add up to give them a yearly income that often exceeds $1000 million. Beckhman’s recently-singed contract with an obscure MLS (America) team called LA Galaxy netted him a paycheck of $50 million—from the club alone. These financial incentives often spoil players so much that their hunger to play well and win a good win, dies out. It has in Beckham’s case.

Modern-day sport is filled with such over-hyped yet mediocre sportsperson who have little motivation to do what they are paid for—play well. And understandably so. It is hardly a surprise that they can’t perform consider they are more celebrities and socialites than athletes and spend more time at parties than breaking a sweat on the field. In fact, they aren’t average human beings any more. Their apotheosis, however, is largely due to their wealth and their name, not their play.

Another adverse impact of the amount of money floating around in the sports world is that talent is given little more than monetary value. The genius of sportsperson is undermined; they are tagged merely as “worth $xx million” rather than a fabulous striker or a goalkeeper with golden hands. Half a century ago, legendary Brazilian footballer Pele, exploded onto the global football scene with outstanding performance in the 1958 and 1962 FIFA World Cups. Back then, his name carried an aura of virtuosity; nobody speculated on how much he was worth and nobody sought to buy him up before someone else could. Now, if a similarly talented young footballer emerges in Africa, European club football bigwigs snatch him up for a measly sum, train him and ‘enhance his monetary value’ before selling him to earn some cash. For example, the English football club Arsenal ‘bought’ French teenager Nikolas Anelka for a little over $500,000 (a massive sum a quarter century ago; now it is pocket money) and ‘sold’ him to Real Madrid after a couple of years fro over $25 million.

The branding of players, the ‘buying and selling’ players, and the poaching of talent are just a few of the terrible ramifications of the commercialisation of sports. But they are terrible indeed. The buying and selling of today’s most celebrated sportspersons and of the raw talent of children in developing countries is akin to the buying and selling of slaves. And in a world that claims to be free.

Team spirit is another thing that has been devoured by the hunger for money. Sportspersons today are little more than mercenaries: they play for the team that offers them the highest pay. This motive is in vivid contrast to only 25 years ago, when there was nothing odd about a player spending his entire career with one team, playing devotedly regardless of salary. Half a century ago, football clubs grew talented players from their teens and formed a formidable unit of dedicated players who shared a common thought: make our team the best. Today, many football clubs, like Manchester City, which don’t even bother with a local youth football system because their oil-merchant owner is ready to fork over any sum of money to assemble the best players form all over the world. Today’s club teams may seem daunting, but they aren’t essentially teams because they have no real team spirit; they are a rabble of individuals with egos as inflated as their bank balances. The selflessness of playing for a team, the brotherhood of team members, the common exhilaration that engulfed the entire team whenever any one player saw success—that is all gone. What is left is greed for money, selfish play to attract clubs who may pay more, and all-round snobbishness and arrogance. Is that what teens imagine when they dream of playing top-level football? Surely not!

The hauteur aside, the money in sports has also directly caused many political and legal scandals. This is simply because avarice for more prize money overwhelms owners more than it does players. The Indian Premier League, the pretentiously self-proclaimed ‘top cricket league in the world’ faced a major scandal earlier this year when one of he core administrators, Shashi Tharoor, was exposed as having been directly involved in determining the winners of matches. There are many similar such examples of public disgraces, the latest being two Pakistani cricketers who confessed to accepting bribes from bookies to bowl no-balls. A couple of years ago, Juventus, one of Italy’s top football clubs and the league winner, ignominiously made headlines for having bribed numerous referees over the course of the season. The club was demoted as punishment, but Italina football is still tainted with the vestiges of this despicable disease: many clubs are owned, directly or indirectly by the notorious mafia, who have no scruples about greasing a few palms to win.

The unprecedented rise in betting is yet another indicator that money has degraded the quality of sports. What was limited to putting a few bucks on the Sunday races at the Derby has now insinuated its way into almost every major sporting event in the worlds. The amounts at stake—thousands, even tens and hundreds of thousands—cause some crooked bookies to unfairly influence the outcome of games. Such corrupt practice is a worrying trend indeed.

All in all, it is obvious that there is far too much money in sport. Players have become rich, unmotivated snobs; clubs have become business franchises in talent purchase and sale; leagues have become international trade enterprises. Something needs to be done to curb the influence of money in sport because if things continue as they are, sport will well and truly lose its meaning. True fans and sportsperson will turn away in disgusts from capitalist enterprises that call themselves sports clubs and some of humanity’s prize qualities—team work, determination and selflessness—will be lost, maybe forever.