Don't let the shiny, sequined baby-blue suits, white shoes, and bell-bottom pants get your distracted. There are some powerful truths about money in our culture being spoken by the O'Jays in that song, "For the Love of Money." For one, people do bad things (or thangs) with it. They'll steal from their own mother and rob their own brother for it. Money can drive some people out of their minds. You shouldn't let money change you. Valuable lessons, all. Especially in politics.
Today, Melissa will take a close look at the increasingly urgent issue of student loans, and how that issue is being sold to the people most directly involved with the issue: college students. We were reminded that many of those college students can vote by the pitches we heard this week: The President slow-jammed his pitch with the Roots and Jimmy Fallon, and blasted his pitch to many a college campus. Mitt Romney tried the same thing yesterday at Otterbein College, with a backdrop of somnolent students:
Mostly sticking to his go-to stump topics, Romney delivered a sleepy address to students at the Ohio school, some of whom seemed to struggle to stay awake. Sometimes it was a losing struggle.
Speeches like that are perhaps why Karl Rove's American Crossroads was so insistent upon attacking President Obama this week for "being cool," a tactic that even Donald Trump dissed. Speaking of Rove, Melissa won't be done talking about cash; to discuss how it has changed our politics and predict its effects on the general election to come, we'll welcome back to the show former Louisiana governor and independent presidential candidate Buddy Roemer, whose entire platform is about campaign finance reform.
We'll also discuss the ongoing, curious debate over changes to the Violence Against Women Act, and the "war on women" Senator John McCain doesn't think exists. Expanding the gender conversation beyond our shores, Melissa will also welcome back to the show Egyptian-American journalist Mona Eltahawy, whose wrenching cover story for Foreign Policy magazine, "Why Do They Hate Us?", shines a floodlight on societal sexism in the Arab Muslim world.
Other guests will be:
- Leila Ahmed, divinity professor at Harvard University, and a critic of Eltahawy's cover story.
- Jessy Tolkan, an independent strategist with a focus on the youth vote.
- Jacqueline Pata, executive director, National Congress of American Indians.
- Tyler Trumbach, chairman of Columbia Young Americans for Freedom, and outgoing president of Columbia University's College Republicans.
- Abby Philip, Politico reporter covering money and politics.
As always, be sure to interact with us during the show on Facebook and on Twitter, using the hashtag #nerdland. See you all at 10am ET!
Leave a Comment:
I like the show and think MHP has a fresh style of dealing with the show but on this education section (student loans) I believe Melissa and her guests are missing the target. Is the issue how we pay for a college education but how much we pay for a college eduation. How much money would be saved for the student if we focused thier eduation and removed electives.
Maybe student loans could be reduced or as discussed maybe tuition could be paid for every student if we focused these discussions on why the costs of a college eduation are out of control.
How education is paid for is very much the issue. For those who just want their education to be focused on core subject matter sans Electives, there are Vocational Schools (typically private like ITT for Tech or PMI for Nursing Schools), Business Schools with a condensed curriculum to fast-track an MBA or other Business Degree and then Community Colleges (typically public). The Community Colleges are typically multi-purpose:
In cases where the State is providing Residents with a Free (or highly subsidized) Education, the only thing that the State would really have to be on the lookout for are those who would try to "game the system" - the "Professional Student" - but the State could stipulate that if a student already has a degree (Bachelors, Masters, Ph.D) and intends to work towards another degree at the same level as a degree already earned, then those classes would cost the student more.
In any case, electives, such as humanities or foreign languages, provide for a broader education. Especially if Ethics classes are classified as Electives. We want people who are not only proficient in doing the job, we want them proficient at being a good person, being a team player, etc. We want Capitalism with a Conscience, not employees who act as if they were mere robots - otherwise the job will be automated away.
Well just heard that "War Against Women" campaign slogan. Hurts me to think that my wife who is over 65 years of age has medications that she takes and I have to pay a co-pay for them. What are we saying when we pay for (to include co-pay) contraceptives and yet life saving drugs for seniors aren't.
Which would you pay for first if it was your money? Would you pay for contraception for your daughter or anti-rejection drugs for your mother?
If my daughter was not financially prepared to raise a child, paying for her contraception, in conjunction with family planning is much less expensive than subsidizing her expenses to raise her own child.
If I had to cover anti-rejection medication for my mother as well then contraception is at least a known expense that can be planned for, whereas pre-natal and neo-natal care leave room for a lot of unpleasant surprises that are impossible to plan for.
@CosmicChuck
Really not following your logic. I am unsure that there is a coorelation between pre-natal vitamins which are not covered to the best of my knowledge and contraceptives. I think that there is often a leap when things become political but frankly, the contraception aspects (not the hormone replacement side which should be covered) should come after we provide everyone with medications that save lives. Think you would agree that pre-natal vitamins are not contraceptives.
Interesting conversation about Islam and the Arab world and it's treatment of women.
Might I ask what about the systematic hatred of Jews?
Not a mention of the fact that in the middle east, Israel which is 8 million people enjoys freedom for men and women and people of all faiths. But in the arab world, let alone the islamic world there is no freedom of religion (or from religion).
Might I suggest until a Jew can live safely in the arab/islamic world you will never achieve a society that a woman can live safely.
@David,
I tend to agree and well said but also believe that if both sides were busy at the business of living then neither would have time to hate each other. We in the west believe that by simply buying peace there is peace and tolerance. Ever think that if we stopped sending money to either side that maybe they would start working together for their own greater good. Hard to hate a consumer of your own goods, right
I respectfully agree with Mona and respectfully disagree with Dr Ahmed. Women's rights are currently being crushed by a rising islamist extremism . This is evidenced by the current law being discussed by the parliment to allow a husband to have sex with the wive's corpse . How revolting!!! There are setbacks for divorced women's rights regarding child care and domestic violence. Mona is right , if we do not grasp the opportunity to promote women's rights, these ludicrous laws will be passed. Sadly many women in the arab world are fighting activism for women's rights. It is sad to think that the work of Hoda Sharawy has gone by the wayside!!! By the way it is a man's world all over the globe, not only the arab world.
Just for clarification, the discussion of this law concerning legalizing necrophilia for men is happening in Egypt. And yes, I agree, it's revolting, but even more so is the law they are considering to lower the age at which a young girl can be married. The necrophilia law, at least doesn't oppress a living person.
It may be that these laws are being proposed by a group of recently installed crazies who have only a tiny voice in the government, but the English language news we are getting isn't specific about that part. Here's hoping that's the case.
Here's a cross section of this Saturday morning's news: CNN: "Cactus Jack" the prickly puppy gets adopted; Fox News: lower corporate tax rates would make Apple move its cash horde back to the U.S. which would "create jobs"; Melissa Harris-Perry addresses the travesty that is the supreme court's decision to allow billionaires to buy elections anonymously by donating unlimited amounts of money to Super PACs.
Thank you for being the only one speaking the truth, and talking about something that MATTERS instead of more pointless John Edwards trial coverage or the beaten-to-death Secret Service scandal; even one hour of real news is a diamond in the dumpster that is today's media.
Has any one else noticed that this current political landscape is indicative of just how well the our "Great Experiment" of democracy is faring? It seems that the closer we as a nation are getting to actual equal representation and government by "the People" we are becoming increasingly aware of how oligarchy has been wrapping itself in the skin of democratic governance for a very long time. Now that the illusion is being ripped away, and actual democracy in which all people have an equal say in how we are governed is becoming a real tangible possibility, suddenly the old guard of the "ruling class" is making their play.
These attempts at corporate person-hood and the concept of money as free speech are bald-faced tactics designed to preserve an existing oligarchy now that we "the People" are becoming increasingly aware of the subterfuge.
This is an exciting time to be a part of this political conversation. For years, as we grew up, we became more aware that this country is not really the democracy we were taught about in schools, that money carried political power in a way that subverted our democratic process, and it was disappointing to say the least. Now we have an opportunity to reform our politics and to insure that this nation becomes the shining beacon of democracy that we always thought it was. We can't let that opportunity slip through our fingers.
@MHPerry, I agree that "War on Women" is not the right term. Nevertheless, there is certainly a movement towards depriving women of self-autonomy that is building steam. For reasons I won't claim to understand, Social-Conservatives are using their religious beliefs to try to justify denying women autonomy with regard to reproductive choices and other healthcare issues.
Another conflict is generated primarily by the fact that the US has an Employer-based Health Insurance model so there is a model-generated tension between Religious Organizations and Freedom of Religion on one hand and individual female employees (and students in the case of Religion-based Schools) and Freedom from Religion on the other. It seems to me that the rights of individuals are more inalienable than the rights of organizations so that the rights of individuals should preempt the rights of organizations.
For several reasons, the US really does need to start shifting away from the Employer-based health insurance model to something different. That would eliminate healthcare as a cost that companies would have with American employees as opposed to outsourced employees and do away with a whole raft of Labor Law conflicts as well.