Joe Biden gets his 'comeback kid' moment - CNN

A couple of days ago, former Vice President Joe Biden's presidential campaign was on life support. Saturday night, with just a fraction of the South Carolina primary vote counted, it seems that Biden has won a commanding victory in a state whose demographic makeup truly reflects the diversity of the Democratic Party base.

South Carolina was always at the heart of Biden's electoral strategy — his first opportunity to establish himself as the clear choice of the party, positioned right before the critical delegate binge of Super Tuesday.

But that was before Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders built a growing head of steam with a near-win in Iowa and dominant victories in New Hampshire and Nevada. Meanwhile, mediocre debate performances, a series of embarrassing gaffes, fourth and fifth-place finishes in the first rounds of voting, and the disruptive entry into the race of former Mayor Mike Bloomberg set Biden back on his heels.

If Biden's South Carolina "firewall" had shattered, his presidential bid would've moved rapidly from intensive care to the coroner's office. It held. And his campaign's messaging calling him the new "comeback kid" has already begun.

What remains to be seen is what South Carolina means for the rest of the field.

Sanders, who'd recently been trying on a mantle of inevitability for size, clearly now faces a different kind of fight. Moderate voters may well snap back into the Biden camp, and other centrist candidates may feel the pressure to make an increasingly hard decision: Whether to stay in the race and continue to fragment the vote against Sanders — or bow out and lend support to Biden.

It seems almost certain that Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar — her brief surge likely over — will consider folding her campaign after Super Tuesday. Billionaire Tom Steyer has now dropped out, and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg may well debate ending his run.

The wild cards remain Bloomberg — a centrist for whom money is no barrier — and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the only progressive alternative to Sanders. Her campaign has been hurt by media dismissal, unlucky timing (what would this race look like if so many Nevadans hadn't already voted by the time of her stunning debate victory in the state?) and, in all candor, misogyny.

Given a decent showing on Super Tuesday (perhaps strong seconds in California and Colorado or a win in her home state of Massachusetts), Warren likely has the resources to keep her fight going. Her passionate supporters, myself included, want her to stay in — given her critically important anti-corruption message, Sanders' recent heart attack (from which he says he's fully recovered) and Warren's status as the most frequent second choice of Democratic voters for candidates across the ideological spectrum.

But it's likely that if Sanders comes in well behind Biden in South Carolina and finds his momentum blunted, Warren could find herself playing a critical role in shaping the outcome of a race that could well end with a contested battle on the Democratic convention floor.

Keeping her in the race is likely in Biden's interests, as a critical progressive counterweight to Sanders.

Yet Sanders might strategically prefer her to stay in — she's the most devastatingly effective foil for Bloomberg. She's also a potentially important aggregator of delegates that Sanders might otherwise lose to Buttigieg and others, assuming that he believes he can dependably reconcile with his longtime ally-turned-rival as the race comes toward its conclusion.

And while the path to victory is admittedly narrow for Warren herself, the cycle has been surprising enough that one can't seem to count anyone out. Coronavirus outbreaks, unexpected news events and rebalancing of support from candidates dropping out of the race all still hold the possibility of changing the game dramatically before the convention comes.

Either way, the action seems like it's only just beginning — and the endgame is anyone's guess.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
March 01, 2020 at 10:20AM
https://ift.tt/2PBHMWp

Joe Biden gets his 'comeback kid' moment - CNN
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

The Case for Mike Bloomberg - The New York Times

This article is part of The Best Case for Each Candidate, where Opinion columnists make their argument for each of the top six candidates.

The best case for Mike Bloomberg is that he’s a brilliant debater who has a witty riposte for every line of attack.

OK. Let me start over. The best case for Mike Bloomberg is that he is not a brilliant debater. He can’t whip a rally crowd into an ideological frenzy. The best case for Bloomberg is that we’ve already elected a reality TV star to the White House. We need somebody who can actually run things.

We need somebody who can actually lead a government, staff an administration with talented professionals and do the mundane but essential tasks of pushing legislation and executing laws. We need somebody who will turn down the ideological temperature, so that we don’t rip ourselves apart as a nation. We have enough politicians who cater to people who treat politics as the place they go to get self-indulgent moral affirmation baths. We need someone who can improve the lives of actual Americans.

Bloomberg was one of the most successful mayors of this century. He was a Republican who left office with two-thirds of New Yorkers saying he had made their city a better place.

I’m not endorsing Bloomberg. I think it’s a mistake for journalists, even opinion journalists, to endorse, and I’d be fine with many of the candidates. But I just want to throw Bloomberg’s record before you:

Education: As mayor, Bloomberg took over a dysfunctional school system and instituted a series of fantastically successful reforms. When he became mayor, less than half of New York students were graduating from high school on time. When he left, nearly two-thirds did so within four years. He replaced large failing schools with small attentive schools. The graduation rates in those places surged from 38 percent to 68 percent. Under Bloomberg test scores rose more quickly than in other cities. The black-white achievement gap decreased by 23 percent.

Job creation: Bloomberg inherited a city reeling from the Sept. 11 attacks and helped kick-start an economic boom. He inherited a city that was economically over-reliant on Wall Street and had a relatively tiny tech sector. Now New York receives the second-highest amount of tech investment, after Silicon Valley. He led the effort to create an applied sciences university on Roosevelt Island that will supply the city with talent for generations. Private sector jobs increased by 10 percent during the last four years of his term alone. The mayor’s office said that 29,000 people found jobs through the city’s career centers in 2012, compared with 500 people in 2004.

Housing: Bloomberg rezoned about 40 percent of New York City and helped spark a neighborhood renaissance along just about every waterway in the city. He led a $2.4 billion expansion of the subway system to serve the new Hudson Yards neighborhood. He managed to finance 170,000 new affordable housing units, even while the state and federal governments slashed housing budgets.

Health and the environment: He banned artificial trans fats and smoking from bars and restaurants. New York experienced about a 30 percent decline in adult smoking over his tenure. Meanwhile his administration added more than 850 acres of parkland, reduced greenhouse-gas emissions in city-owned buildings and created a bike-share program. Life expectancy in New York is now 81.2 years, more than two years longer than the national average.

Crime: Stop-and-frisk is obviously a blot on Bloomberg’s record. His focus on crime data made him blind to the human beings who were mistreated under his policies. And yet during his tenure homicide rates dropped by 65 percent and shootings dropped by 55 percent. In Bloomberg’s final year there were only 335 murders in New York, comparable with the 1950s.

Budgets: He raised property taxes on the most affluent citizens and used the money to improve city services. When he entered office the city budget was $42 billion. When he left it was about $70 billion.

The case against Bloomberg is that he has said insensitive stuff and he didn’t succeed in making New York more equal. The case for him is that he led an immense amount of change that made life better overall. You decide. Does America need more gridlock and ideological fireworks or a practical manager who gets stuff done?

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
February 27, 2020 at 05:00PM
https://ift.tt/32ENV9s

The Case for Mike Bloomberg - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

The Case for Amy Klobuchar - The New York Times

This article is part of The Best Case for Each Candidate, where Opinion columnists make their argument for each of the top six candidates.

Since President Trump took office, Democrats have been having a passionate debate about what matters more: increasing progressive turnout or winning over swing voters. And there is no doubt that both tactics help Democrats win elections. But the evidence about which tactic matters more is pretty overwhelming. Persuasion does.

Take one stark pattern: In the 2018 midterms, many Democratic candidates who ran persuasion campaigns flipped areas that had gone for President Trump in 2016. Not a single Democrat won a competitive state or House district with an unabashedly progressive campaign.

Yet the presidential field is dominated by candidates who haven’t had to worry about persuading swing voters in years, if ever. Delaware (Joe Biden’s home), Massachusetts (Elizabeth Warren’s) and Vermont (Bernie Sanders’s) all voted against Trump by large margins. Pete Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg were each the mayor of an overwhelmingly Democratic city.

The best case for Amy Klobuchar is that she’s the only remaining candidate with a track record of winning over the kind of voters that the Democrats will need to beat Trump. She has built her career on a middle-class image that avoids the leftism of Sanders or Warren and the elitism of Buttigieg or Bloomberg. As for Biden, Klobuchar looks sharper than he does — and she has a much more impressive electoral history.

She won all three of her Senate campaigns in Minnesota by more than 20 percentage points. Trump, by comparison, lost the state by only 1.5 points in 2016. Klobuchar did it by winning suburbs that normally lean right and holding her own in many rural areas.

Her strategy isn’t exactly a secret. It is the same one that many congressional Democrats used in 2018, and not so different from Barack Obama’s approach to his 2012 re-election. She emphasizes the pocketbook issues on which Democrats hold a huge advantage over Republicans. She doesn’t make voters anxious by promising utopian dreams, like a mandatory version of Medicare that would ban private insurance. She promises to reduce the cost of medical care — and points out that Republicans will raise those costs.

Klobuchar also finds ways to demonstrate her respect to voters who disagree with her on many issues. She describes Minnesota as “a proud hunting state” and visits each of its 87 counties every year. She doesn’t take unpopular positions on immigration, like border decriminalization.

And yet Klobuchar is hardly a centrist. She wants to raise taxes on the rich, break up monopolies, vastly expand Medicare, fight climate change, admit more refugees, allow undocumented immigrants to become citizens, ban assault weapons and require universal background checks. A Klobuchar administration would probably be well to the left of the Obama administration.

Mike Pence, Trump’s vice president, has long said that he is conservative but not angry about it. Klobuchar is progressive without being angry about it. The combination can allow a politician to win the middle without being of that middle.

At this stage, of course, Klobuchar is unlikely to be the nominee. She hasn’t quite figured out how to adapt her approach for the scale of a presidential race. Too often, she still seems to be running for Senate, talking about committee assignments and legislative co-sponsors instead of telling a story about the country.

Still, Democrats would be wise to remember that her success in Minnesota is no mystery. It is the main way Democrats have won elections over the past decade, and it’s a strategy that any Democratic nominee, even Sanders, can mimic:

Pound away at simple economic issues — on which the country’s voters are legitimately progressive. De-emphasize cultural issues — on which voters are much more divided. And don’t give in to fantasies involving millions of left-wing nonvoters who are just waiting to show up at the polls.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Listen to “The Argument” podcast every Thursday morning, with Ross Douthat, Michelle Goldberg and David Leonhardt.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
February 27, 2020 at 05:00PM
https://ift.tt/39cAEaE

The Case for Amy Klobuchar - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opinion: Business leaders could never get away with talking like politicians - Gainesville Times

Frequently business leaders speak to groups on various occasions: staff and board meetings, civic clubs, awards ceremonies, dedication of new facilities and even to media representatives when the company faces a public crisis. To achieve excellence in presenting ideas to audiences clearly and convincingly, not only do managers and CEOs enroll in communication courses and hire speech coaches, they also look for role models who demonstrate platform skills.

Corporate leaders who seek speaking role models should not select political speakers for several reasons. 

First, political speakers seek votes and donors by saying repeatedly that the opposition is no good. They find flaws with an opponent's private life and governing record. They try to assure the public: "Elect me, because I am more moral and more capable than those scoundrels running against me." That may work in politics but will generate resentment and rejection if a business executive tried to attract customers by saying how lousy other vendors are. Prospective clients want to know how good your service or product is on its own merit. 

Second, political leaders fail fact checks repeatedly. Soon after speeches and press releases, economic experts and historians will identify misleading comments and data. No business leader will succeed when her company's annual report distorts the facts. 

Third, political speakers lack consistency in their opinions and declarations. They reshape their rhetoric according to what has become popular. Yet, only the worst supervisors would vacillate on policies anybody could check against the minutes of previous meetings. These supervisors wouldn't last long when their fickle ways surfaced. 

Fourth, political speakers speak with a forced dramatic style designed to prompt applause. The cadence is obvious: "This. is the greatest. month. that our campaign. has experienced."  By contrast, a CEO makes an unpunctuated statement that stands on its own value. "This is the finest quarter we have enjoyed in five years." No applause expected, none needed. 

Fifth, political speakers habitually take credit for anything accomplished "on my watch." They wear out the "I" and "my" approach. In their viewpoint, the world should be grateful and should reward them by checking their names in the ballot booth — and sending in more dollars. Beware of the business leader who claims he deserves sole credit for the corporation's growth. His hard-working team will feel slighted and may very well seek employment where the C-suite is not overflowing with ego. 

Please note that I have not identified any one candidate, office holder or party. In my judgment, these oratorical flaws surface in practically every political presentation. I'm delighted that the overwhelming majority of business and industry kingpins rely on much more respectable and ethical communication approaches.

Bill Lampton

Gainesville

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
March 01, 2020 at 02:20AM
https://ift.tt/2TkdNTC

Opinion: Business leaders could never get away with talking like politicians - Gainesville Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

How to Be a Smart Coronavirus Prepper - The New York Times

The first case of “community transmitted” Covid-19 in the United States popped up just a few miles north of my home in San Francisco. That means the person who is sick with the new coronavirus has no known connection to China or travelers from there — she got it from someone in her local Northern California community. My community. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said the arrival of Covid-19 is “inevitable.” Because the disease has an incubation period of at least two weeks, I could be surrounded by the infected and not know. Hell, I could be infected.

I’m low-key terrified. And yet stores are open, the sun is shining, and kids are playing in the park near my house. The city feels completely normal, despite headlines warning us that San Francisco’s mayor, London Breed, has declared a state of emergency. In my city, where we’re constantly braced for earthquakes and wildfires, looming existential threats are normal. In fact, they’re so normal that, ironically, we rarely think about them, and most of us prepare for disaster only sporadically.

But as these threats become more frequent, our everyday lives will have to change. We’ll need to embrace the idea of survivalism. It’s a loaded word. It brings to mind militias in rural areas, or unhinged preppers posting conspiracy theories on YouTube. I’m describing a new kind of survivalism, one that’s pragmatic, urban and focused on community rather than rugged individuals.

It’s an old fashioned idea — planning for the worst and hoping for the best. When a Covid-19 case appeared in Hawaii a couple of weeks ago, I created a shared online document for my family: “prepper list.” We added everything we thought we’d need if the virus hit California: medicines, canned vegetables, face masks, rice. But we kept realizing there were random things we hadn’t thought about: cat food, toilet paper, coffee. The prepper list started as a whimsical thought experiment, but today I checked off the final items. Then I started texting my neighbors and friends about pooling our resources. When I showed a friend my cabinets full of prepper supplies, she looked at me quizzically and asked, “So … you went to Trader Joe’s?”

Yes, it may look like a little cozy shopping, but the raw psychological reality is that everyone I know is vacillating between freak-out and denial. One night, my friends and I talked about “plague news” in such grisly detail that one of us had to declare a moratorium because he was getting too upset. So we watched three episodes of “Brooklyn 99” instead of figuring out whether we had enough medical supplies to survive two weeks of mandatory lockdown.

This isn’t some meme-corroded, cynical response. We’re coping the same way people did in previous plaguey times. News blackouts during the 1918 Spanish flu prevented people from understanding how deadly it was. And even afterward, when it was known that it had claimed 50 million to 100 million lives, only a few people wrote documentary accounts of the pandemic — Katherine Anne Porter explored it in fiction with her novel “Pale Horse, Pale Rider.” It was as if an entire generation just wanted to forget. Only in the 1970s did Alfred Crosby write a history of the devastating disease in a book called, tellingly, “America’s Forgotten Pandemic.”

Back in the late 1340s, the English poet and essayist Geoffrey Chaucer survived the first wave of the Black Death that killed off 50 percent of London’s population. He grew up in a world forever changed by a pandemic, and yet he mentions the plague only once in his enormous body of work. My point is that people have been trying to forget about pandemics for almost a millennium — the urge to hide from the truth and binge watch comedy (or write “The Canterbury Tales”) is strong.

As a science journalist, I’ve been following news of this outbreak carefully and warning my friends of its coming. I thought I was ready. After all, my family still has boxes of N95 masks left over from two years ago, when San Franciscans dealt with heavy smoke from the California wildfires. But what I’ve realized over the past few days is that I’m ready for a world-ending disaster — and that’s very different from being ready to survive in a world that’s damaged but still going.

Sure, that’s partly because of my human urge to push the fear out of my mind. But it doesn’t help that the White House is downplaying the risks of a pandemic, leaving most of us feeling like we’ll have to rely on ourselves if things get seriously apocalyptic. And what does that look like? Will we be hiding out in our homes, eating Trader Joe’s boxed soup and watching sitcoms? Will we lose power and water? Will there be martial law, grounded planes and forced evacuations?

To cope with these uncertainties, we have to turn preparation for survival into the new normal. Instead of freaking ourselves out with unimaginably dark scenarios, we need to plan for a difficult future every day. Start washing your hands before eating and after riding public transit. Have a supply of nonperishable food in your cabinets, along with a box of face masks and medicines. Talk to friends and family about how you’ll work together to get through this. Do a little every day. Each tiny thing you do to prepare is a small act of hope. We are going to survive, and when we do, we’ll really be glad to have those canned tomatoes and dried pasta. And all those TV episodes you downloaded for a rainy day.

Normalizing survival is the opposite of normalizing disaster. When we get scared, we forget that it’s normal to be ready for bad things to happen. It’s not overreacting; it’s just how we get through life. When the disaster is over, we will want to obliterate it from memory, and that’s fine. All we need to remember is how to get ready for the next one.

Annalee Newitz (@Annaleen) is a contributing opinion writer and the author, most recently, of “The Future of Another Timeline.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
February 29, 2020 at 10:00PM
https://ift.tt/38c5aQG

How to Be a Smart Coronavirus Prepper - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Trump is failing the leadership test on coronavirus - CNN

In the aftermath of the Challenger explosion in 1986, people shared grief and were reassured by President Ronald Reagan's address to the nation. George W. Bush grabbing the bullhorn at ground zero in 2001 reminded the country that together we would all get through this tragedy. For Bill Clinton, it was the Oklahoma City bombing response, and for Barack Obama, his powerful speech and song in Charleston, South Carolina, in the aftermath of the shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.

And yet for every powerful moment, there are as many misses. George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq and in 2005 his quote to the embattled FEMA director after Hurricane Katrina, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," created a political hole that Bush 43 never quite climbed out of. And in the midst of a serious economic crisis in the late 1970's, Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech hit all the wrong notes for rebuilding confidence in America's economy.

The point is that communicating matters. Words and optics make a big difference, not only politically, but in solving whatever crisis faces the country. President Donald Trump faces one of those moments right now with the spread of the coronavirus. To date, he's done almost everything wrong. He has consistently underplayed the potential for a serious public health crisis here at home. Worse, he has made a series of off-the-cuff remarks on a complicated scientific problem that has undermined the work being done both at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Compounding the problem is his apparent emphasis -- too often -- on the economy and the stock market instead of the public health issues. Is there anyone who really doubts by now that for Trump his own political fortunes, which are tied to economic and market performance, take precedence over protecting the health of all Americans? But that approach has failed spectacularly because the markets are looking for the same thing the public wants and needs -- reassurance that there is a plan in place to deal with the potential pandemic.

Making matters even worse, Trump has made this a political football by going after the Democratic leaders in Congress and not contradicting conservative commentators who are making outrageous claims about Democrats rooting for the virus to spread to gain political advantage. Trump went as far as to say Friday night at a rally in South Carolina that coronavirus is the Democrats' "new hoax."

Like all Presidents before him, his ability to govern (and in Trump's case, be reelected) will be judged by his performance during crisis in the next weeks and months. There are several steps he should take immediately that will both help solve the problem and boost his political standing.

First, he must stop speaking off the cuff. His comments have ranged from uninformed to the ridiculous. Saying things like, "A lot of people think that (the virus) goes away in April ... as the heat comes in," undermines his ability to be the communicator in chief.

Since we know he won't stop tweeting, he should use that platform to put out sound and vetted advice on what average Americans can do, what they should worry about and what they shouldn't. In any crisis, the person or organization that consistently delivers accurate and useful information controls the narrative. The President is uniquely positioned to fill that role.

Second, it's right to coordinate all information through a central source, with the White House being the logical place. But to be effective, you have to provide information through briefings on a regular basis.

A communications team drawn from the medical community needs to brief the press every day. Flood the zone with information, become the trusted source of what people need. Let the political and legislative people be involved where appropriate, but let the experts drive the information flow. Information, not spin, is the way forward. It's not a zero-sum game. You don't win by proving you're better than your political opponents. You win by winning the public's trust to solve the problem

Third, Trump should suspend or scale back the political activities of the administration. It was a terrible look this week as the President simultaneously sought to calm the country and markets while meeting with social media personalities Diamond and Silk and other right-wing leaders as part of the CPAC conference. The Vice President putting off his first task force meeting until after the same divisive political conference also didn't help.

The President should not be running around the country holding rallies and should not be using the bully pulpit to castigate Democrats on this important issue. Bring the Democrats in, make them part of the solution. In the end, it's the President who will get the lion's share of the credit -- and the blame.

Fourth, optics matter, optics reassure. The President needs to be seen directing the massive resources of the federal government that are arrayed against the spread of coronavirus. It's not enough to be solving the problem, the President needs to provide evidence that the government is doing everything it can, and he is the force driving the process. And it's not just optics.

The President, through his public actions, has a unique ability to actually activate and drive the response. Put simply, when the President says we are going to do something, the government responds.

Fifth, he needs to be straight with the American public. People want to know how serious the problem is, what is being done and what they can do about it themselves. They don't want platitudes and will severely penalize any politician who pretends there is no real problem when everyone knows there is.

It runs against all elements of Trump's makeup, but a little humility, honesty and rolling up of the sleeves -- doing the work of government and being seen doing it -- would go a long way. These are not the times for self-congratulation and claiming that only one man can solve the problem. It's a potential crisis that will force Trump to act differently if he hopes to survive politically.

Finally, the economy is based on fundamentals and perception and emotions. Trump needs to level with the American people about the impact of the virus. Bragging about how strong we are runs counter to what people are seeing. Acknowledge the pain this virus will cause, and be clear about what the government can and can't do. Remember what Bush 43 said in the aftermath of 9/11: We will need to change the way we fight terrorism, but if everyone stays home and doesn't go out and spend and live, the terrorists have already won.

It is unlikely the President can grow into this model overnight. But his reelection may depend on it, given the far-ranging impacts of a possible pandemic. President Clinton had a simple credo that he followed consistently: Good policy always makes good politics. President Trump would be wise to follow that advice.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
February 29, 2020 at 11:31PM
https://ift.tt/2TpNqfl

Trump is failing the leadership test on coronavirus - CNN
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opini: Mengapa Kualitas Pendidikan di Makassar Turun? – Bonepos.com – Informasi Berita Terkini Sulsel - Bonepos.com - Informasi Berita Terkini Sulsel

Tulisan ini diilhami dalah satu berita di harian ternama Kota Makassar yang menyoroti turunnya mutu pendidikan di Ibukota Propinsi Sulawesi Selatan, yang selama kurun waktu hampir empat dasawarsa menjadi kiblat pendidikan terbaik di kawasan Timur Indonesia.

Kita masih ingat di era tahun 70an, Makassar menjadi sentra tujuan pendidikan di Pulau Sulawesi, Nusatenggara, Maluku dan Papua, bahkan sebagian Kalimantan. Rata rata penduduk di Pulau pulau ini menjadikan Kota Makassar sebagai orientasi mereka belajar, mengais ilmu pengetahuan.

Mulai dari tingkat SMA hingga perguruan tinggi. Selain Unhas, IAIN Alauddin (sekarang UIN Alauddin), UMI merupakan lembaga pendidikan yang menjadi tujuan utama.

Namun memasuki era tahun dua ribuan, minus Unhas, pendidikan di Kota Makassar mengalami penurunan yang cukup drastis. Menyebut Kota Makassar tentu saja Sulawesi Selatan menjadi karakter menilai standar mutu pendidikan.

Jika kita telusuri penyebabnya antara lain:

Pertama, terjadi stagnanisasi proses belajar mengajar. Tergantung pada model belajar yang sudah nyaris ketinggalan dibanding metode yang diterapkan pendidikan di Jawa, misalnya. Walaupun, sesungguhnya di tingkat Asia, pendidikan di Indonesia, memang "jalan di tempat".

Kedua, fokus perhatian pemerintah daerah lebih mengarah pada pembangunan sarana dan prasarana. Sebagai bagian daripada infrastruktur. Meskipun sejatinya inti infrastruktur (core infrastructure) adalah manusia. Sehingga, pendidikan lebih banyak diarahkan pada kegiatan belajar mengajar rutin tanpa pengembangan dengan progres untuk maju.

Ketiga, Anggaran pendidikan yang relatif kecil jika dibandingkan ke pekerjaan-umuman, akibatnya sarana belajar yang boleh di katakan "apa adanya" dengan kondisi fisik yang memprihatinkan.
Keempat, manajemen kependidikan tidak terpola secara baik.

Ada adagium yang berkembang dan hampir sudah menjadi "rahasia umum", suatu istilah yang dipadankan pada rutinitas, ganti pemimpin ganti pola dan kebijakan. Implikasi dari sikap seperti ini, selalu mencoba suatu hal baru. Tidak ada keberlanjutan.

Kelima, Kualitas guru, juga dosen (dalam beberapa orang maupun kelompok orang punya potensi luar biasa dan sangat cerdas) belum menjadi tujuan utama dari pemerintah. Ini dapat diukur dari anggaran penelitian yang sangat minim, belum mencapai satu persen dari produk domestik bruto dan anggaran pendapatan belanja.

Keenam, kerjasama antar perguruan tinggi di tingkat regional dan internasional relatif masih kurang dan tidak fokus pada satu bidang ilmu tertentu.

Kemudian sedikit mengalami perubahan setelah di undangkannya sistem pendidikan nasional, yang hingga hari ini belum diimpelentasikan secara komprehensif dan gradual. Akibatnya, lagi lagi, adagium di atas berlaku, terpasung pada kurikulum yang selalu berubah. Di samping itu anggaran yang diamanatkan oleh konstitusi belum dioptimalkan sejak ditetapkannya, di hampir dua dekade terakhir.

Merujuk pada Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, pada Pasal 1 angka 1 menyatakan bahwa pendidikan adalah usaha sadar dan terencana untuk mewujudkan suasana belajar dan proses pembelajaran, agar peserta didik secara aktif dapat mengembangkan potensi dirinya untuk memiliki kekuatan spiritual keagamaan, pengendalian diri, kepribadian, kecerdasan, akhlak mulia, serta keterampilan yang diperlukan dirinya, masyarakat, bangsa dan negara.

Aturan tersebut diperkuat oleh UUD 45 Pada BAB XIII pada Pasal 31 dalam ayat 1 yang berbunyi: tiap-tiap warga negara berhak mendapatkan pendidikan; ayat 2: setiap warga negara wajib mengikuti pendidikan dasar dan pemerintah wajib membiayainya; ayat 3: pemerintah mengusahakan dan menyelenggarakan satu sistem pendidikan nasional, dalam rangka mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa yang diatur dengan undang-undang; ayat 4: negara memprioritaskan anggaran pendidikan sekurang-kurangnya 20% dari anggaran pendapatan dan belanja negara (APBN) serta dari anggaran pendapatan dan belanja daerah untuk memenuhi kebutuhan penyelenggaraan pendidikan nasional; dan ayat 5: pemerintah harus memajukan ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi dengan menjunjung tinggi nilai-nilai agama dan persatuan bangsa untuk kemajuan peradaban serta kesejahteraan umat manusia.

Beleid ini kemudian membentuk 8 Standar Nasional Pendidikan, yang diatur dalam Permendiknas Nomor 41 Tahun 2007 tentang Standar Proses untuk Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah, dan PP No. 19 Tahun 2005 tentang Standar Pendidikan Nasional. Lingkup Standar Nasional Pendidikan ini meliputi:

Standar Isi;
Standar Proses;
Standar Kompetensi lulusan;
Standar Pendidikan dan tenaga kependidikan;
Standar Sarana dan prasarana;
Standar Pengelolaan;
Standar Pembiayaan; dan
Standar Penilaian Pendidikan.

Dari apa yang diatur ini, hanya sedikit daerah di Indonesia yang sudah mencapai batas minimal, jika bisa dikatakan belum ada. Yang tertinggi hanya 18% APBD murni , seperti DI Yogyakarta, Malang yang memang di kenal sebagai kota pendidikan di Indonesia. Menyusul DKI Jakarta yang sudah di kisaran 16%.

Bagaimana dengan Makassar ?

Sebagaimana judul dari tulisan ini, Kota Makassar menjadi sorotan. Paling tidak dalam sepuluh tahun terakhir, dengan sampel yang kita ukur sejak 2010. Secara nasional, Kota Makassar masih berada di urutan lima belas daerah di Indonesia dan mengalami penurunan di tahun 2014 ke urutan 17 dari aspek kualitas luaran pendidikan.

Artinya, Kota Makassar dengan kategori nasional masih menunjukkan tren yang positif. Tetapi memasuki 2016 hingga 2019 kita terdegradasi dari 20 besar di Indonesia. Oleh sebab, bukan hanya persoalan anggaran, sarana dan prasarana belajar, Kualitas guru, manajemen pengelolaan sekolah, dana bos yang lebih banyak di alokasikan pada kegiatan yang tidak ada kaitan langsung dengan peningkatan mutu pendidikan.

Terutama, disebabkan perhatian para pengambil keputusan yang sangat lemah , jikalau tidak mau dikatakan tidak terlalu perduli dengan pendidikan kita. Bahkan sampai ada yang neyelutuk bahwa Kota Makasar ini di pimpin oleh orang yang selalu "merasa pintar" sehingga tidak boleh ada yang melebihi kecerdasan yang dimiliki pemimpinnya.

Suatu prinsip yang pernah dianut oleh rezim penjajah Belanda,, dahulu. Sebagai ilustrasi diagram di bawah ini menunjukkan kepada kita besaran anggaran di antara Kabupaten/ Kota di Sulawesi Selatan.

Sebagai kota metropolitan dan menjadi pusat pemerintahan di Sulawesi Selatan dengan alokasi anggaran pendidikan yang hanya 9% pada APBD tahun 2019, plus Dana Alokasi khusus yang didapatkan dari APBN yang lebih besar, yakni lebih dari 12%, maka sangatlah riskan untuk dapat kita ukur bahwa komitmen pemerintah kota untuk mengangkat derajat pendidikan kita .

Tetapi, celakanya, klaim keberhasilan itu di"umbar" sedemikian rupa dengan narasi yang justru memojokkan pihak lain. Ini, yang kita sebut dalam teori kepemimpinan, non-responsive leadership. Yang ketidak-mengakuan atas kegagalan yang dicapai dengan berusaha menjustifikasi keberhasilan yang justru sangat berbeda dengan fakta yang ada.

Mengapa Mutu itu menurun?

Pertanyaan inti dari tulisan ini yang akan kita kupas secara singkat tapi diusahakan menyenttuh inti permasalahan. Bahwa suatu kualitas itu dianggap menurun, bukanlah suatu proses serta merta. Tapi suatu hal yang berlangsung cukup lama.

Jadi sangatlah tidak bijak sekiranya ada yang memvonis, bahwa dengan memimpin kurang dari satu tahun lalu serta merta dianggap kualitas pendidikan kita menurun oleh karena kepemimpinan seseorang, tanpa ada ukuran yang jelas atas dakwaan ini.

Oleh karena itu jawaban mengapa menurun? Paling tidak dipengaruhi dua faktor utama. Pertama, dinas pendidikan kota Makassar tidak cukup cakap mengelola pendidikan.

Selama kurun waktu lima tahun terakhir dinas ini tidak dipinpin orang yang mengerti pendidikan. Bahkan tidak punya back ground yang cukup untuk memenej opd tersebut. Kedua, kebijakan yang tumpang tindih dan tidak dipersiapkan secara matang, serta mengukur implikasi yang ditimbulkan.

Misalnya, re-grouping sekolah dasar dan pemekaran jumlah sekolah menengah pertama. Ini sebuah kebijakan yang amat sangat tidak direncanakan dan di desain secara matang dan menyeluruh. Pendidikan tidak sama dengan dinas teknis lainnya. Dinas ini mengatur manusia yang out put nya adalah proses belajar-mengajar. Outcome-nya adalah kualitas peserta didik.

Deskripsi ini, paling tidak memberikan informasi kepada kita, bahwa mengukur kualitas tidak berdiri sendiri. Banyak faktor yang mempengaruhi. Semoga ini menjadi perhatian pemerintah kota ke depan.

Wallahu 'alam bisshawab
Makassar 28 Februari 2020, pukul 19. 21 Wita
M. Ridha Rasyid, praktisi dan pemerhati pemerintahan.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"opini" - Google Berita
February 29, 2020 at 10:57PM
https://ift.tt/2PCpSCR

Opini: Mengapa Kualitas Pendidikan di Makassar Turun? – Bonepos.com – Informasi Berita Terkini Sulsel - Bonepos.com - Informasi Berita Terkini Sulsel
"opini" - Google Berita
https://ift.tt/2Fl45Kd
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opinion does not relieve one of being factually correct - Eastern Arizona Courier

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Opinion does not relieve one of being factually correct  Eastern Arizona Courier

"Opinion" - Google News
February 29, 2020 at 08:00PM
https://ift.tt/32BafRg

Opinion does not relieve one of being factually correct - Eastern Arizona Courier
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opinion: Letter to the Editor: Uncontrolled Chaos in Alexandria? - Virginia Connection Newspapers

Moving through the intersection of King and Union Streets on a weekend or more specifically on a holiday is hazardous. The cars, pedestrians, motor coaches, trolleys, bicycles, joggers, and skate boarders are all in competition to cross the street, and no one trying to rationally sort this mess out. Never do I see a policeman intervening with the traffic. This was again highlighted on President’s Day when I personally was caught up in this calamity.

I have often said that this situation does not need a police officer, per se, but a parking enforcement officer, or one of the school crossing officers could bring some sort of sanity to what is now uncontrolled chaos. This small intersection is a magnet for whoever comes to Old Town, and is without a doubt the busiest thoroughfare in the entire city, yet no one in our city government takes responsibility for it when all it takes is one person to solve the problem. Additionally, it is amazing that no one has been seriously injured in attempting to cross this intersection on a busy day.

When this City Council passed the Waterfront Plan, they alluded to it as a “world class waterfront,” which is a misnomer and a travesty, since no one traversing this intersection is going to praise our waterfront. At the current time, it resembles a third world crossing point. If we truly want citizens and guests to extol our uniqueness, our history, and our walkability, then we must create order out of chaos at this, the most visible intersection in the city on weekends and holidays. To do any less is to admit indifference and acceptance of the status quo.

Townsend A. “Van” Van Fleet

Alexandria

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
February 29, 2020 at 03:38PM
https://ift.tt/38aDL1B

Opinion: Letter to the Editor: Uncontrolled Chaos in Alexandria? - Virginia Connection Newspapers
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Trump could gain scary new powers from a court’s immigration opinion - Vox.com

A federal appeals court handed down a decision on Wednesday that upholds a small part of the Trump administration’s efforts to crack down on undocumented immigrants.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in New York v. Barr is an outlier within the judiciary — three other federal appeals courts struck down the specific Trump administration effort at issue in New York — and there is at least one aspect of the court’s opinion that is shocking. Taken seriously, the opinion could permit the federal government to conscript every cop, prison guard, and prosecutor in the country into a massive deportation squad.

Of course, the question of whether the Supreme Court will ultimately embrace this outlier view is quite uncertain. But the current Court has been unusually sympathetic to Trump’s immigration policies, so there is at least some risk that the outlier view will prevail.

The New York opinion was authored by Judge Reena Raggi, a George W. Bush appointee. It was joined by Judges Ralph Winter, a Reagan appointee, and José A. Cabranes, a conservative Clinton appointee.

The case primarily deals with the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, a federal program that helps fund state and local efforts to fight crime. The Trump administration required recipients of these grants to take several steps to help the administration identify and deport undocumented immigrants. Among other things, it wants grant recipients to inform the administration when certain non-immigrants are released from state prisons, and it wants federal immigration officials to be allowed to meet with incarcerated immigrants.

As a constitutional matter, Congress has broad authority to impose conditions on federal grants. The bulk of the New York opinion discusses whether any existing federal law gives the attorney general the power to impose these particular conditions on Byrne Grant recipients. It concludes that the attorney general does, indeed, have this authority.

That decision is debatable — again, three federal appeals courts reached different results — but the stakes surrounding this question are fairly low. As Judge Raggi’s opinion points out, the amount of money at stake here represents “less than 0.1% of [New York’s] annual $152.3 billion budget” and “less than 0.1% of [Massachusetts’] annual $38.92 billion budget.” So either state can afford to simply forgo the grant money if it does not want to help the Trump administration deport more immigrants.

But Raggi’s opinion also includes a short section that would fundamentally rewrite the balance of power between the federal government and the states, at least when immigration policy is involved. That’s the section that could enable the federal government to conscript millions of state and local employees into a deportation army.

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution provides that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Judge Raggi’s opinion suggests that there is an immigration exception to this amendment.

For several decades, the Supreme Court has held that the 10th Amendment implicitly prohibits the federal government from commanding a state to take an action the state does not want to take. As the Court explained in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), the Constitution only gives the federal government a laundry list of specific powers, and “conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States.”

This rule, that the federal government may not give orders directly to the states or to state employees, is known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. As a practical matter, it is not an especially rigid limit on federal power. If the federal government wants to enforce a particular policy, it is free to spend its own money or send its own officials to enforce that policy. As discussed above, the federal government may also offer to pay states for their assistance.

But if a state adamantly refuses to help the federal government achieve a particular goal, federal officials cannot make the state do something it does not want to do. The federal government cannot, for example, order state officials to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Nor can it require states to allow federal law enforcement into state-run facilities.

Judge Raggi’s New York opinion, however, suggests that this anti-commandeering doctrine does not apply at all to matters of immigration policy. Recall that the 10th Amendment provides that certain powers are “reserved to the states.” Raggi argues that “a commandeering challenge to a federal statute depends on there being pertinent authority ‘reserved to the States.’” But, “in the immigration context ... it is the federal government that holds ‘broad,’ and ‘preeminent’ power.”

Raggi suggests that, because the Constitution gives Congress the power to set the nation’s immigration policy, it also must have the power to command states to enforce that policy.

But this argument fundamentally misunderstands the anti-commandeering doctrine. Though it is true that the power to set immigration policy is not “reserved to the states,” states do have the power to control their own police forces, to operate their own prisons, and to decide under what conditions state prisoners will be released from those prisons.

New York is not simply a case about a disagreement between the federal government and several states regarding immigration policy. It is a case where the federal government’s legitimate authority to set national immigration policy conflicts with the states’ equally legitimate power to manage their own law enforcement agencies in the way they deem fit.

And the Supreme Court’s anti-commandeering cases already tell us what happens when such a conflict arises: The federal government may set a national immigration policy, but it cannot order the states to enforce that policy.

It’s worth noting that the portion of Raggi’s opinion which laid out her idiosyncratic theory of the 10th Amendment was a bit of a non sequitur from the rest of the opinion — what lawyers refer to as “dicta.” As a practical matter, that means that lower courts should not be bound by Raggi’s unusual analysis.

The Supreme Court’s conservative members, moreover, have typically been protective of the anti-commandeering doctrine. Raggi’s opinion offers them a creative way to work around that doctrine, but not an especially convincing one. So it’s probably more likely than not that at least one of the five conservative justices would reject Raggi’s approach.

But if the courts were to embrace Raggi’s reasoning, the consequences would be enormous.

One of the most significant constraints on President Trump’s power to crack down on immigrants is the fact that he has only so many resources at his disposal. In 2016, the federal government employed about 132,000 full-time law enforcement officers, and fewer than half of these officers work in immigration or border enforcement. By contrast, there are nearly 700,000 sworn law enforcement officers working throughout the United States. If the anti-commandeering doctrine isn’t an obstacle, the federal government could potentially order every single one of these officers to target immigrants.

Just as significantly, Raggi’s opinion raises serious concerns about whether the law applies equally to liberals and conservatives alike. As Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote, “when, in writing for the majority of the Court, I adopt a general rule, and say, ‘This is the basis of our decision,’ I not only constrain lower courts, I constrain myself as well.”

One of the most important limits on judicial power is that judges typically must paint with broad brushes. Appellate judges, in particular, hand down general legal rules which should apply equally to all similar cases. When the Supreme Court says that the federal government cannot give orders to state officials, it announces a broad rule that should apply to all cases where the federal government tries to order around state employees.

Raggi’s opinion, however, seems to create a carve-out to an important legal doctrine for the one area of policy that most concerns a Republican president. That’s a dangerous precedent in its own right. If courts can create these kinds of exceptions on the fly, they can create even more exceptions in the future. Or they can create exceptions to their own exceptions if a Democratic president pushes an immigration policy that’s opposed by red states.

In that world, the rule of law is likely to become a casualty.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
February 27, 2020 at 08:50PM
https://ift.tt/2TivQda

Trump could gain scary new powers from a court’s immigration opinion - Vox.com
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opinion: India's Religious Violence Doesn't Meet Its Founder's Vision - NPR

Enlarge this image

An employee checking flags at the Indian National Flag Production Center in the southern state of Karnataka. Manjunath Kiran/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Manjunath Kiran/AFP via Getty Images

Years ago, I covered a protest by thousands of people in their underwear.

Civil servants in Calcutta, now called Kolkata, opposed a plan to replace the nylon kurta, that loose, long blouse worn by many Indian government workers, with kurtas made of cotton khadi cloth. Millions of government workers wearing home-spun khadi could help build India's village industries. It seemed such a right thing to do.

But many government workers bristled. Khadi might be cooler in India's wilting heat, but it wrinkles. Fastidious bureaucrats would have to take more of their own time at home to launder and press crinkled khadi kurtas.

So government workers marched to the center of the city--and shucked off their kurtas. They chanted in their underwear, "Hell, no, khadi cloth has got to go!"
An American has to admire India — the world's largest democracy — with a dazzling diversity of views and faiths, and citizens who are restive, rambunctious, witty, and vocal in scores of languages and thousands of political parties.

There have been religious rivalries and bloodshed in India for centuries. But for the first time since modern India was created in 1947, this multi-ethnic society of scores of faiths is now ruled by a religious-nationalist government, the Hindu-nationalist party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The Citizenship Amendment Act that passed through parliament has alarmed many Indians because it gives other faiths a quick route to Indian citizenship — but not Muslims.

A federal law that makes Muslim migrants less welcome may seem to tell all of India's 200 million Muslim minority they are somehow less valued in the country they have built, defended and shared with all Indians. It does not echo what India's founding prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, told the nation when it was founded: "All of us, to whatever religion we may belong, are equally the children of India..."

As President Trump visited Prime Minister Modi this week about 40 people, mostly Muslim, were killed in New Delhi, in clashes and even mob action. In these times when there seems to be such a strong call to populism in so many places, we might remember that a democracy doesn't just mean majority rule, but that all minorities are protected and respected. As Nehru also said, "Those dreams are for India, but they are also for the world."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
February 29, 2020 at 07:01PM
https://ift.tt/39cMLUW

Opinion: India's Religious Violence Doesn't Meet Its Founder's Vision - NPR
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opinion: Fix U.S. tax code to address climate change and our health - The Mercury News

J. David Ake/Associated Press

In this 2018 photo, the Dave Johnson coal-fired power plant is silhouetted against the morning sun in Glenrock, Wyo. Burning fossil fuels, like coal and crude oil, directly results in people having more heart attacks, respiratory disease and strokes, writes a Richmond pediatrician.

The climate crisis is here. It is real and it is hurting our health.

As physicians in Northern California, my colleagues and I see how climate change is making our patients sicker every day. We see infants and children with worsening asthma due to wildfire smoke exposure. We see adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease requiring stronger and more toxic medication due to worsening air pollution caused by gas-powered cars.

And we see children and adults who are increasingly anxious and depressed about the fate of our planet. They are right: Our he0alth and future — as well as that of all of humanity — is at stake.

But 2019 ended with a climate whimper as Congress missed the opportunity to make a more meaningful impact on climate change than it has in the last decade by updating and extending the tax code to promote clean energy. A package of clean-energy incentives, including for energy storage, solar, offshore wind power and electric vehicles, failed to make it into Congress’s year-end government spending deal due to White House pressure.

These important clean-energy incentives would improve our health while reducing climate change-causing emissions. By leveling the playing field between fossil fuels and clean energy, we can improve our health and the health of our children.

The burning of fossil fuels is directly associated with premature death around the world. Burning fossil fuels, like coal and crude oil, directly results in people having more heart attacks, respiratory disease and strokes. Put bluntly: Burning fossil fuels is killing millions of people, including children.

Living near a major freeway or road is dangerous because of exhaust caused by burning fossil fuels. By getting more electric vehicles on the road, we can make our air healthier, prevent asthma and help limit the most catastrophic effects of climate change. Car exhaust accounts for 4 million new cases of childhood asthma each year around the world.

Right now, our tax code strongly favors the creation of new fossil fuel projects. Large-scale clean-energy projects are possible and cost-effective. But we need to level the tax code, and hence the playing field, for clean-energy projects that rely on wind, solar and complementary energy storage to get off the ground so that we, especially our children, can be healthy.

Call your member of Congress today. Tell them the climate crisis is here and it’s affecting our health. Talk to local businesses that stand to benefit from these changes to the tax code and encourage them to call their congressional representatives. We need to significantly up the pressure on Congress now so this opportunity is not lost again.

The climate crisis is here and we no longer have the luxury of time. Congress needs to hear from us, as many of us as possible — Democrats, Republicans, young, old, West Coast, East Coast, farmer, businessperson, rich, poor. Our voices matter. And nothing is more important than our health.

The decisions we make today are critical to determining our health right now and the health of our children moving forward. There is no time to waste.

Dr. Amanda Millstein is a pediatrician working in Richmond. She is a member of the San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility and a co-founder of Climate Health Now.

Get Morning Report and other email newsletters

Sign Up

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
February 28, 2020 at 09:10PM
https://ift.tt/2PxtTIt

Opinion: Fix U.S. tax code to address climate change and our health - The Mercury News
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opini: Harus “Seksi dan Menggoda”, Merawat Ekowisata di Desa - Bonepos.com - Informasi Berita Terkini Sulsel

BONEPOS.COM, BONE - Indonesia, negara kaya. Memiliki keberagaman budaya, suku, bahasa, dan keunikan wilayah adalah lanskap alami yang menyimpan rahasia. Menjadi daya tarik tinggi. Masyarakat harus bersyukur hidup di Tanah Air.

Di sanalah spot-spot wisata itu bisa dikapitalisasi dan dimodifikasi sehingga layak dikunjungi. Memenuhi standar ecotourism (ekologi, ekonomi, sosial-budaya, edukasi, pengalaman, kenangan dan kepuasan). Dan yang terpenting adalah memenuhi standar wisata ramah lingkungan.

Beberapa tahun terakhir, desa-desa di Indonesia bergegas mengeksplorasi potensi wisatanya. Ruang-ruang otentik yang ada di sungai, di pesisir, bukit dan pegunungan mulai dilirik lebih serius sebagai basis eco-wisata.

Kesadaran bahwa di lingkungan terdekat kita menyimpan sesuatu yang spektakuler dan menjanjikan mulai bertumbuh.

Tak sekadar sebagai sebuah potensi bernilai ekonomi, tetapi juga sebagai ikon dan utamanya sebagai upaya membangkitkan kebanggaan pada kampung sendiri.

Potret pengelolaan ekowisata di desa sebagai contoh, sejak 2017 silam, ada wisata alam bernama “Rammang-Rammang” di Kabupaten Maros, Sulawesi Selatan. Kini, jadi buah bibir di mana-mana.

Kawasan wisata itu, terletak di Desa Salenrang, Kabupaten Maros dan hanya berjarak sekitar 40 kilometer dari kota Makassar.

Tempatnya amat eksotik karena dikelilingi karst Maros yang dikenal terbaik kedua di dunia.

Akses menuju Rammang-Rammang juga tak kalah menariknya, pengunjung menyusuri sungai dengan perahu kecil, sembari mengamati gugusan karst dan area persawahan yang apik.

Sejak awal, tempat itu diprediksi bakal mendunia. Pada Rakernas Indonesia Marketing Association (IMA) 2017 di Balikpapan, Rammang-rammang diperkenalkan sebagai lokus baru yang layak dikunjungi sebagai satu pesona Indonesia (wonderful Indonesia).

Bukan tanpa alasan, Rammang-Rammang memiliki potensi yang marketeble di masa mendatang.

Faktanya, hingga saat ini, wisata Rammang-Rammang jalan di tempat, pesonanya tergerus karena tak terkelola maksimal.

Bukan hanya soal infrastruktur yang tidak memadai, faktor keamanan dan kenyamanan di Rammang-Rammang, misalnya belum disiapkan tawaran alternatif yang membuatnya selalu dirindukan.

Tak ada villa di dalam area wisata, tak ada aneka kuliner khas lokal bernuansa alami, pagelaran budaya, atau konsep wisata ramah lingkungan. Ini membuat wisatawan berpikir seribu kali untuk berkunjung kedua kalinya.

Hal yang sama saya jumpai saat berkunjung di wisata mangrove Tongke-Tongke, Kabupaten Sinjai, Sulawesi Selatan.

Kawasan ini tergolong menarik sebagai kawasan ekowisata mangrove, tetapi pengunjung hanya sebatas menyaksikan hutan bakau, panorama laut beserta angin sepoinya.

Pengunjung belum disajikan kuliner khas pesisir, makanan, dan minuman berbahan bakau, atau fasilitas jelajah hutan bakau.

Bahkan, sangat disayangkan, kubangan sampah begitu massif, merusak pemandangan. Kawan Saya bernama, Fumiko Furukawa (Dosen dari Kobe University Jepang) yang pernah studi banding bersama mahasiswanya di Tongke-Tongke mengagumi keindahan kawasan ini—tetapi ia terkejut dan sangat terganggu dengan sampah plastik yang berseliweran.

Belum lagi adanya konflik kepentingan antara otoritas lokal (Kepala Desa) dan pihak Pemerintah Daerah Sinjai terkait pembagian pemasukan. Hal ini berakibat pada tidak adanya pengembangan serius di Tongke-Tongke yang berdampak positif pada masyarakat di sekitarnya.

Di kabupaten sebelahnya yakni Bulukumba juga mulai tertarik mengembangkan wisata mangrove. Tepatnya di Desa Mannyampa Kecamatan Ujungloe Kabupaten Bulukumba—sebuah kawasan wisata baru bernama “Mangrove Luppung” juga diperkenalkan di awal tahun 2020.

Antusias warga sekitar cukup tinggi mengunjunginya, terutama untuk kepentingan swafoto dan mungkin melunasi rasa penasaran. Sayangnya, seperti banyak spot ekowisata di banyak tempat, Luppung juga diselimuti banyak kelemahan. Merawat keberlanjutan.

Di mana masalahnya?

Pertama, perencanaan pembangunan ekowisata di desa tidak memikirkan aspek keberlanjutannya. Kedua, biaya yang dikeluarkan dalam pembangunan destinasi ekowisata seringkali hanya terfokus pada penataan ruang tanpa memikirkan inovasi, kreativitas dan kekhasannya.

Misal, bagaimana menawarkan sesuatu yang sungguh otentik dan memukau, fasilitas yang ramah bagi pengunjung serta wisata ramah lingkungan. Ini semua selalu absen dalam lanskap ekowisata di desa.

Di desa-desa lain di Indonesia, juga hampir mengalami hal yang sama. Seringkali karena latah-latahan melihat sepak terjang desa lain, sebuah destinasi ekowisata dibangun sekadar mengandalkan eksotika alam.

Tanpa perencanaan berkelanjutan dan manajemen yang baik, destinasi itu akan mati suri seiring waktu.

Selain dukungan kebijakan dan perencanaan, ekowisata lokal tidak menggambarkan etos budaya lokal.

Data Klikhijau.com mengungkap, masyarakat di pedesaan belum semuanya memiliki model pengelolaan sampah yang baik.

Tidak sedikit warga di desa membuang sampahnya dengan cara; bakar, timbun dan buang ke sungai atau lautan.

Perilaku buruk ini juga mewarnai eksistensi destinasi ekowisata di desa, di mana sampah dan pemakaian plastik sekali pakai misalnya belum jadi prioritas untuk dikelola.

Hal ini membuat destinasi wisata di pedesaan terdesak oleh masalah lingkungan. Padahal, destinasi ekowisata sejatinya justru menawarkan edukasi pada pengunjungnya.

Menikmati wisata alam berarti memasuki ruang kontemplasi terdalam, betapa alam menyediakan kebaikan pada manusia.

Karenanya, berwisata alam berarti meneguk makna tentang pentingnya harmonisasi antara alam dan manusia. Sebuah penghayatan tentang alam semestayang harus dijaga dan dilestarikan dengan cinta.

Dengan demikian, membangun destinasi ekowisata di desa berarti merawat tatanan nilai-nilai lokal (local wisdom) di dalamnya. Mengagendakan keberlanjutan (sustainability), partisipasi dan keteledanan dari warga lokal, serta menumbuhkan harapan berkemajuan dari desa.

Bila tidak, ini akan menjadi paradoks sepanjang masa. Desa dibangun tapi dimensi lingkungan dan kebudayaannya tergerus perlahan.

Oleh sebab itu, tidak ada cara lain, ekowisata desa harus didesain semaksimal mungkin, dengan tidak melupakan otentitas dan kekayaan lingkungannya.

Desa harus menjelma sebagai rumah kenangan yang selalu menggoda disambangi berulang kali. (Anis Kurniawan-Sosiopreneurship/ril)

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"opini" - Google Berita
February 29, 2020 at 03:11PM
https://ift.tt/32GpXuC

Opini: Harus “Seksi dan Menggoda”, Merawat Ekowisata di Desa - Bonepos.com - Informasi Berita Terkini Sulsel
"opini" - Google Berita
https://ift.tt/2Fl45Kd
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update