I've got a window to the cafeteria.
If I open the glass shutters,
I can sniff through and smell the
oven-cooked Gordon Food Service pizzas,
the grilled Angus steak patties,
the MSU Bakery cookies.
It's terrible because
if I open the glass shutters,
I can stop and listen to the
polemical discourse of birds.
As a follower of avian politics, I find the
olfactory advertising distracting.
30 November 2007
28 November 2007
I Want a Good, Clean, Fight
Now Serving Tazo Green Tea
I went to Debra Nails' boot camp.
Writing philosophy is
checking an airplane before takeoff.
No Scare Quotes
No Ad Hominems
No Straw Men
No Sentention or Sarcasm
No Rhetorical Cliche
Writing philosophy is
drilling muscle memory for fun.
We give to the imagination with excellence.
I went to Debra Nails' boot camp.
Writing philosophy is
checking an airplane before takeoff.
No Scare Quotes
No Ad Hominems
No Straw Men
No Sentention or Sarcasm
No Rhetorical Cliche
Writing philosophy is
drilling muscle memory for fun.
We give to the imagination with excellence.
27 November 2007
Service Learning Speech
Finally, a sunny day! I was about to move to Australia.
Service Learning
Based on goals and principles:
- to construct a sense of civic responsibility in students
~ emphasize duty rather than ambiguous "charity"
- to give students hands-on, subject-related experience in the world as part of an education
~ Peter Block's theory of education relates to experience of teaching middle school debate
- to build good relations with the community and successfully respond to a significant community need
-paraphrased from Communication as Critical Inquiry in Service-Learning, by Spoma Jovanovic (2003).
In order to construct civic responsibility,
- encourage independence
~ make students take the initiative - it's beneficial if the student can provide own
transportation, resources, ideas, etc.
- encourage original theory
~ having students do theory will ensure their most thorough understanding of the class topics, as well as the political philosophy of civic service
~ students can apply real-world experiences as a form of research (keeping in mind the dangers of anecdotal evidence in some instances)
Mundane work:
- alone, not legitimate
- in conjunction with other activity (and continuing to meet other criteria), this is legitimate
~ mundane work is after all part of the "real world"
~ can accomplish all of our goals
- Example: letter data entry
Acknowledge overlap of personal and political:
- Allow students to advocate a political perspective with their research
~ ensure that community need is still met, regardless
- Encourage political discourse (or political philosophy) as part of class discussion
and reflection
Service Learning
Based on goals and principles:
- to construct a sense of civic responsibility in students
~ emphasize duty rather than ambiguous "charity"
- to give students hands-on, subject-related experience in the world as part of an education
~ Peter Block's theory of education relates to experience of teaching middle school debate
- to build good relations with the community and successfully respond to a significant community need
-paraphrased from Communication as Critical Inquiry in Service-Learning, by Spoma Jovanovic (2003).
In order to construct civic responsibility,
- encourage independence
~ make students take the initiative - it's beneficial if the student can provide own
transportation, resources, ideas, etc.
- encourage original theory
~ having students do theory will ensure their most thorough understanding of the class topics, as well as the political philosophy of civic service
~ students can apply real-world experiences as a form of research (keeping in mind the dangers of anecdotal evidence in some instances)
Mundane work:
- alone, not legitimate
- in conjunction with other activity (and continuing to meet other criteria), this is legitimate
~ mundane work is after all part of the "real world"
~ can accomplish all of our goals
- Example: letter data entry
Acknowledge overlap of personal and political:
- Allow students to advocate a political perspective with their research
~ ensure that community need is still met, regardless
- Encourage political discourse (or political philosophy) as part of class discussion
and reflection
19 November 2007
I Will Now Deliberate With You
Edit: Comment criticism is legit; this argument's main premise is shoddy
Someone in the RCAH said to me, "People don't use simple sentences any more, and it makes me sad."
Now Serving Deep-Fried Parents
The argument for deliberative democracy is a very strong one, and in most circumstances I don't hold that it faces very legitimate opposition. A directly democratic process that simply lists options and calls for votes is more subject to irrationality than a deliberative one. With deliberation, argument allows for the force of reason - which is firmly entrenched in the most common of minds as the best and solely legitimate support for democratic options, as opposed to the popularity of the speaker or novelty of the option - to enter the collective consciousness of the deliberating group.
As Terence Beck writes in "The Music of Deliberation," deliberation gives citizens a chance to listen to each other, expand the volume of their considerations, and weigh both the ethical as well as practical implications of an option. As each citizen expresses a unique concern, all the concerns involved with an issue become relevant. We move away from hastily-adopted positions based on rhetoric, and towards concise positions based on the unique circumstances of a given problem.
Beck's anecdotal example of the deliberative process clearly shows its strengths. He saw that opposing sides "seemed to stop asking 'how can I win?' and started asking 'What should we do?' The letters, phone calls, and lobbying ceased." Not only was a solution arrived at, but resources (material as well as temporal) that would have been spent on endless fighting were saved for better use.
While it's clear that deliberation is far superior to the war-like, competitive direct-democracy approach, I oppose its use in parent-teacher relationships. I'll simply say that teachers are very obviously more qualified to make decisions regarding education than parents. Parents come from all walks of life; while some are well-educated, others are not only ignorant, but simply wrong on educational issues.
Our educational institutions, as a whole, have come to certain conclusions about their field. Everyone involved is certainly not on the same page, and they have disagreements, but their disagreements come within a reasonable range. It's an academic subject, in which their is dialogue - or, to use a more appropriate term, deliberation - among scholars in the field. One cannot advocate for a position and expect to be heard without first having read lengthy, detailed articles about hundreds (if not thousands) of other positions. There is no conclusion or widely-accepted opinion in the educational institution that hasn't come from a long, deliberative process in which every participating member has spent a lifetime studying the subject.
To bring this down to teachers, consider that public school teachers have to become re-certified every few years, going back to school to study the academic subject of education. At higher levels, studying a subject is (to some extent) participating in the scholarly deliberation about it. What I'm getting at is not only that teachers have expertise and training that the common parent simply doesn't have, but that the deliberation has already been done. A democratic process, of a sort, has already taken place, well before ideas or systems have been brought to bear on schools. It took place with the appropriate participants (unlike deliberations involving parents), people who have a lot of knowledge to feed into the deliberative reasoning machine.
Let's take a look, again, at Beck's anecdotal example. When the interests of general education clashed with the interests of music education, there wasn't a compromise so much as there was a sacrifice in another area, recess. I'm sure that sixth-grade students, who are known for having no opinions about their education and never disagreeing with their parents or teachers, were extremely pleased with that result. I'm sure that they brought their squeaky strings and quacking horns to music class with bright eyes, bushy tails and aspirations of becoming concert musicians (and, of all people, wouldn't be distracted by thoughts of outside-playing that they're missing out on).
As long as I'm on this, I feel obliged to state my own position on the subject of music and general education. While I can't speak for the specific situation of Terence Beck's school, I (ironically enough) agree with the parents' stance in more general circumstances - that music should be taught during school. The education provided to children at that age ought not to focus on the hard knowledge of math and science; it should be more concerned with teaching children how to learn, and helping them grow. If that's our goal, then our achievement of it hinges less on what is taught, and more on how it is taught.
There does appear to be a disconnect in my argument - if teachers are more qualified than parents, then why am I siding with the parents? I'll note again that I'm not actually taking a side in the case of Beck's school, but rather in a broader national debate; I don't know enough details to speak authoritatively about that school's situation. Nor, in fact, do I have much authority at all in the national debate - which brings me to my original point. I'm not a certified teacher; I have a neglible amount of experience assisting teachers in private, religiously-oriented classes, and certainly no degree. When the question of music and general education in public schools comes up, my opinion comes without the extensive backround of an experienced and certified educator.
While Beck's argument for the deliberative process clearly shows its superiority to the directly democratic process, it doesn't show why it is that parents' opinions should be involved.
Someone in the RCAH said to me, "People don't use simple sentences any more, and it makes me sad."
Now Serving Deep-Fried Parents
The argument for deliberative democracy is a very strong one, and in most circumstances I don't hold that it faces very legitimate opposition. A directly democratic process that simply lists options and calls for votes is more subject to irrationality than a deliberative one. With deliberation, argument allows for the force of reason - which is firmly entrenched in the most common of minds as the best and solely legitimate support for democratic options, as opposed to the popularity of the speaker or novelty of the option - to enter the collective consciousness of the deliberating group.
As Terence Beck writes in "The Music of Deliberation," deliberation gives citizens a chance to listen to each other, expand the volume of their considerations, and weigh both the ethical as well as practical implications of an option. As each citizen expresses a unique concern, all the concerns involved with an issue become relevant. We move away from hastily-adopted positions based on rhetoric, and towards concise positions based on the unique circumstances of a given problem.
Beck's anecdotal example of the deliberative process clearly shows its strengths. He saw that opposing sides "seemed to stop asking 'how can I win?' and started asking 'What should we do?' The letters, phone calls, and lobbying ceased." Not only was a solution arrived at, but resources (material as well as temporal) that would have been spent on endless fighting were saved for better use.
While it's clear that deliberation is far superior to the war-like, competitive direct-democracy approach, I oppose its use in parent-teacher relationships. I'll simply say that teachers are very obviously more qualified to make decisions regarding education than parents. Parents come from all walks of life; while some are well-educated, others are not only ignorant, but simply wrong on educational issues.
Our educational institutions, as a whole, have come to certain conclusions about their field. Everyone involved is certainly not on the same page, and they have disagreements, but their disagreements come within a reasonable range. It's an academic subject, in which their is dialogue - or, to use a more appropriate term, deliberation - among scholars in the field. One cannot advocate for a position and expect to be heard without first having read lengthy, detailed articles about hundreds (if not thousands) of other positions. There is no conclusion or widely-accepted opinion in the educational institution that hasn't come from a long, deliberative process in which every participating member has spent a lifetime studying the subject.
To bring this down to teachers, consider that public school teachers have to become re-certified every few years, going back to school to study the academic subject of education. At higher levels, studying a subject is (to some extent) participating in the scholarly deliberation about it. What I'm getting at is not only that teachers have expertise and training that the common parent simply doesn't have, but that the deliberation has already been done. A democratic process, of a sort, has already taken place, well before ideas or systems have been brought to bear on schools. It took place with the appropriate participants (unlike deliberations involving parents), people who have a lot of knowledge to feed into the deliberative reasoning machine.
Let's take a look, again, at Beck's anecdotal example. When the interests of general education clashed with the interests of music education, there wasn't a compromise so much as there was a sacrifice in another area, recess. I'm sure that sixth-grade students, who are known for having no opinions about their education and never disagreeing with their parents or teachers, were extremely pleased with that result. I'm sure that they brought their squeaky strings and quacking horns to music class with bright eyes, bushy tails and aspirations of becoming concert musicians (and, of all people, wouldn't be distracted by thoughts of outside-playing that they're missing out on).
As long as I'm on this, I feel obliged to state my own position on the subject of music and general education. While I can't speak for the specific situation of Terence Beck's school, I (ironically enough) agree with the parents' stance in more general circumstances - that music should be taught during school. The education provided to children at that age ought not to focus on the hard knowledge of math and science; it should be more concerned with teaching children how to learn, and helping them grow. If that's our goal, then our achievement of it hinges less on what is taught, and more on how it is taught.
There does appear to be a disconnect in my argument - if teachers are more qualified than parents, then why am I siding with the parents? I'll note again that I'm not actually taking a side in the case of Beck's school, but rather in a broader national debate; I don't know enough details to speak authoritatively about that school's situation. Nor, in fact, do I have much authority at all in the national debate - which brings me to my original point. I'm not a certified teacher; I have a neglible amount of experience assisting teachers in private, religiously-oriented classes, and certainly no degree. When the question of music and general education in public schools comes up, my opinion comes without the extensive backround of an experienced and certified educator.
While Beck's argument for the deliberative process clearly shows its superiority to the directly democratic process, it doesn't show why it is that parents' opinions should be involved.
09 November 2007
Net Neutrality Brief
Net Neutrality
According to Columbia law professor Tim Wu, the definition of network neutrality "is that a maximally useful public information network [the internet] aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally." Advocates of net neutrality (NN) want legislation that prevents privately-owned internet service providers (ISPs) from limiting or blocking access to particular websites. They argue that NN prevents ISPs from having monopolistic power over internet services, as well as the ability to effectively censor websites.
Critics of net neutrality argue that it amounts to regulation and censorship that will be detrimental to competition. In the past, they've advocated for legislation opposed to NN, and have allies in the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission.
Federally, no legislation has been passed in congress either way, but the FTC has said that it will not enforce net neutrality, and there are some reports of ISPs "breaching" net neutrality. In Michigan, net neutrality became an issue when advocates opposed HB 6456 (2006), more well-known as a telecommunications and cable bill.
For Net Neutrality
- Broadly seen as the "Democrats' position"
- Supported by Google, the Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org, Consumers Union, American Library Association, Christian Coalition of America, ACLU, and Teamsters, among others
- The pro-NN grassroots coalition is at http://www.savetheinternet.com, and a group of pro-NN corporations is at http://www.openinternetcoalition.com
Against Net Neutrality
- Broadly seen as the "Republicans' position"
- Supported by the Center for Individual Freedom, American Conservative Union, National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and Verizon, among others
- Industry-backed anti-NN websites can be found at http://netcompetition.org and http://handsoff.org
Sources
http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/ (Search for HB 6456 of 2006)
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/08/neutrality.shtm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376597/
According to Columbia law professor Tim Wu, the definition of network neutrality "is that a maximally useful public information network [the internet] aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally." Advocates of net neutrality (NN) want legislation that prevents privately-owned internet service providers (ISPs) from limiting or blocking access to particular websites. They argue that NN prevents ISPs from having monopolistic power over internet services, as well as the ability to effectively censor websites.
Critics of net neutrality argue that it amounts to regulation and censorship that will be detrimental to competition. In the past, they've advocated for legislation opposed to NN, and have allies in the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission.
Federally, no legislation has been passed in congress either way, but the FTC has said that it will not enforce net neutrality, and there are some reports of ISPs "breaching" net neutrality. In Michigan, net neutrality became an issue when advocates opposed HB 6456 (2006), more well-known as a telecommunications and cable bill.
For Net Neutrality
- Broadly seen as the "Democrats' position"
- Supported by Google, the Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org, Consumers Union, American Library Association, Christian Coalition of America, ACLU, and Teamsters, among others
- The pro-NN grassroots coalition is at http://www.savetheinternet.com, and a group of pro-NN corporations is at http://www.openinternetcoalition.com
Against Net Neutrality
- Broadly seen as the "Republicans' position"
- Supported by the Center for Individual Freedom, American Conservative Union, National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and Verizon, among others
- Industry-backed anti-NN websites can be found at http://netcompetition.org and http://handsoff.org
Sources
http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/ (Search for HB 6456 of 2006)
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/08/neutrality.shtm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376597/
06 November 2007
Bubbles (RCAH 292)
Now Serving Sad Face
The immediate concern I have with John Eger's theory of creativity and economy is its unwarranted optimism. The idea that humanity is naturally progressing to a new era of prosperity and creativity, and that the United States' massive job losses due to outsourcing can be saved by Silicon Valley, seems to be evoking the blind and historically embarrassing predictions of the enlightenment. It was once popular to assert that the industrial revolution would eventually lead to a utopian world, where automation and mass production would provide enough for everyone. We've certainly seen, particularly after World War Two, that there is no magic pill for the timeless ills of society (especially poverty), with which we can passively sit back and watch things fix themselves. The best and most significant contribution to any solution is active, human effort to pursue not only prosperity, but also justice.
Admittedly, this isn't a fair evaluation of Eger's entire piece. He does argue that cities who want to compete in the new internet-economy will have to invest in educating its citizens about the internet, as well as stimulate creativity and civic pride. I couldn't agree with him more, and the abundance of data he provides makes for strong evidence. But he fails to address the very real roadblocks that exist, other than the obvious commonly-entrenched opinion that the arts have no value. Nowhere in his article does he consider the raging debate over who will provide internet service in the United States, and how that service will be provided. Many cities that have attempted to provide free municipal wireless internet have met stiff and pervasive resistance from telecomm giants, who obviously have an interest in keeping the internet private. One such case is the city of Philadelphia, and the result was that "the governor of Pennsylvania last week signed into law a controversial bill that includes, among myriad items, a provision giving incumbent carriers the ability to prevent cities from creating and charging for municipal Wi-Fi networks." The bill was strongly advocated-for by Verizon, who agreed to allow the city of Philadelphia's municipal Wi-Fi to move forward in exchange. The result was that the rest of the state was doomed to remain under the heel of privately-controlled internet.
And the term "privately-controlled internet" takes on another meaning altogether when we consider the fading of net neutrality (which I'm not going to waste space explaining; if you don't know about it yet, that really is your problem and you should go here immediately). With the FTC more or less controlled by telecomm giants ("I . . . question the starting assumption that government regulation, rather than the market itself under existing laws, will provide the best solution to a problem," says FTC Chair Deborah Platt Majoras, utilizing the terminology of Comcast, AT&T and Verizon), net neutrality is not being enforced. ISPs are already moving on that information, with Comcast blocking bittorrent traffic (much of which is wholly legal, such as an employer distributing information to employees, or software developers distributing patches to their customers).
None of this is mentioned by John Eger; his article was so dearth of anything regarding net neutrality that it almost seems I've gone off-course in evaluating it. But I haven't, because if telecomm giants can control what consumers access on the internet, there can be none of Eger's creativity. All the excitement over user-created content, the sort of "internet populism" that fuels optimistic arguments such as Eger's, fails to recognize that without net neutrality, the internet will slowly grow more like television, with content regulated by the gate-keepers at large media corporations. And to the extent that the internet is influenced by the United States, this will have repercussions around the globe.
The immediate concern I have with John Eger's theory of creativity and economy is its unwarranted optimism. The idea that humanity is naturally progressing to a new era of prosperity and creativity, and that the United States' massive job losses due to outsourcing can be saved by Silicon Valley, seems to be evoking the blind and historically embarrassing predictions of the enlightenment. It was once popular to assert that the industrial revolution would eventually lead to a utopian world, where automation and mass production would provide enough for everyone. We've certainly seen, particularly after World War Two, that there is no magic pill for the timeless ills of society (especially poverty), with which we can passively sit back and watch things fix themselves. The best and most significant contribution to any solution is active, human effort to pursue not only prosperity, but also justice.
Admittedly, this isn't a fair evaluation of Eger's entire piece. He does argue that cities who want to compete in the new internet-economy will have to invest in educating its citizens about the internet, as well as stimulate creativity and civic pride. I couldn't agree with him more, and the abundance of data he provides makes for strong evidence. But he fails to address the very real roadblocks that exist, other than the obvious commonly-entrenched opinion that the arts have no value. Nowhere in his article does he consider the raging debate over who will provide internet service in the United States, and how that service will be provided. Many cities that have attempted to provide free municipal wireless internet have met stiff and pervasive resistance from telecomm giants, who obviously have an interest in keeping the internet private. One such case is the city of Philadelphia, and the result was that "the governor of Pennsylvania last week signed into law a controversial bill that includes, among myriad items, a provision giving incumbent carriers the ability to prevent cities from creating and charging for municipal Wi-Fi networks." The bill was strongly advocated-for by Verizon, who agreed to allow the city of Philadelphia's municipal Wi-Fi to move forward in exchange. The result was that the rest of the state was doomed to remain under the heel of privately-controlled internet.
And the term "privately-controlled internet" takes on another meaning altogether when we consider the fading of net neutrality (which I'm not going to waste space explaining; if you don't know about it yet, that really is your problem and you should go here immediately). With the FTC more or less controlled by telecomm giants ("I . . . question the starting assumption that government regulation, rather than the market itself under existing laws, will provide the best solution to a problem," says FTC Chair Deborah Platt Majoras, utilizing the terminology of Comcast, AT&T and Verizon), net neutrality is not being enforced. ISPs are already moving on that information, with Comcast blocking bittorrent traffic (much of which is wholly legal, such as an employer distributing information to employees, or software developers distributing patches to their customers).
None of this is mentioned by John Eger; his article was so dearth of anything regarding net neutrality that it almost seems I've gone off-course in evaluating it. But I haven't, because if telecomm giants can control what consumers access on the internet, there can be none of Eger's creativity. All the excitement over user-created content, the sort of "internet populism" that fuels optimistic arguments such as Eger's, fails to recognize that without net neutrality, the internet will slowly grow more like television, with content regulated by the gate-keepers at large media corporations. And to the extent that the internet is influenced by the United States, this will have repercussions around the globe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
