You may or may not have heard about the young lady, Ashley Todd, who was purportedly attacked yesterday, and the initial reports were that she was attacked for being a McCain supporter.
Well, check this out: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/index.html
Friday, October 24, 2008
Daily Trifecta No. 3
Word of the Day:
INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY: (1) the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows, or believes, to be false; (2) the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed the rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one’s deeply held beliefs in face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion which it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence, but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.
See references and sources at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty
Quote of the Day:
Intellectual Honesty is more than what’s legislated; it is inherent in the best people, those who take a broader view of their action than simply, “What’s in it for me?”Fact of the Day: Top Three Highest and Top Three Lowest 3 Yr Avg Median Income by State (2005 – 2007):
INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY: (1) the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows, or believes, to be false; (2) the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed the rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one’s deeply held beliefs in face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion which it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence, but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.
See references and sources at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty
Quote of the Day:
Intellectual Honesty is more than what’s legislated; it is inherent in the best people, those who take a broader view of their action than simply, “What’s in it for me?”Fact of the Day: Top Three Highest and Top Three Lowest 3 Yr Avg Median Income by State (2005 – 2007):
Fact of the Day:
New Jersey $65,933
Maryland $65,124
New Hampshire $63,942
Louisiana $39,461
Arkansas $39,279
Mississippi $35,971
Figures acquired from U.S. Census Bureau Statistics Web Site
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Post No. 59: Art Imitates Political Life Again
© the Institute for Applied Common Sense
As this piece is being written, I am watching an old episode of The West Wing on Bravo. The “conversation” in the episode was so close to the current “conversation” in our presidential race, that I had to find out when the series ended. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing.) It turned out to be 2006.
Part of The West Wing conversation had to do with courting evangelical Christians, uniting the Republican party, affiliation with shady characters from one’s past, and associations with ministers. There was also a discussion about the public’s seeming demand for expressions of religious faith from politicians. However, those issues are not the focus of this piece.
This piece is about uniting America. In the West Wing episode, Alan Alda plays a member of Congress planning to run for the presidency when Martin Sheen’s character, President Bartlett, leaves office. A Karl Rove type political consultant, played by Ron Silver, is brought in by one of Alda’s aides to counsel Alda. One gets a sense that Alda does not respect Silver. Silver even goes so far as to question Alda as to whether Alda thinks that Silver is really a spy sent by the opposition.
At some point during the exchange, Silver essentially says the following: “Look, I’ve spent 20 years driving a wedge between people. By observing what drives people apart, I also observed what brings people together. How about this? How about becoming the candidate of unity – the candidate who is capable of defining those issues and goals on which we can all agree, and the methods used to achieve them. We can highlight those ways in which people are connected and have the same basic values. We can also play to their emotions in that during these times of uncertainty, it is more important for us to be united than divided. If you do what I say, you’ll be elected as the candidate of unity.”
I found it to be of interest that Obama originally painted himself as the candidate of unity. He claimed that he was able to cross political and cultural lines. Interestingly, it was the politics of division, from within and without his party, which ultimately caused him to respond in kind.
Do we as a nation have the capability and motivation to unite and get past our individual differences? It has generally been said that such unification, and looking past our selfish interests, occurs during periods of “stress.” These might include war (at least those in which the whole country is invested), natural disaster, and common threats (such as a poor economy or the attack on the World Trade Center). Are we as a nation sufficiently in trouble (or worried) to prompt us to find some unifying principles around which we can rally?
To some extent that’s what occurred when oil prices hit the roof. We finally started a serious conversation on alternative energy sources and energy independence. (By the way, Jimmy Carter first tried to doing something about energy during his term.)
I find it a tad ironic that we are facing some very serious problems in this country, and we are still focusing on our differences. I still say that the Laughingman had it right earlier this year. If only McCain had nominated Obama as his VP, and Obama had done the same with McCain. That would have been the shot heard around the world.
I recently heard an author speak on C-Span2 Book TV. (I was unable to locate the book for purposes of this article.) However, it was someone fairly well known, since Newt Gingrich trusted him enough to provide him with his records and notes. In the records, the author located a set of amazing documents.
As most of you are aware, there was no love lost between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Furthermore, they did not trust one another. However, at some point in Clinton’s second term, they both came to the conclusion that they both loved their country. They also both felt that partisanship was having a detrimental effect. Erskine Bowles was Clinton’s Chief of Staff (1997-1998) at the time, and fortunately, Gingrich trusted him.
The author actually found a document outlining the terms of the truce, and stating the goals of Clinton and Gingrich. The document further contained a pledge to work together. Just before it was about to go to the press, and announced to the American public, the Monica Lewinsky story broke 2 or 3 days before. Thereafter, the Congress and the President were absorbed by the Fellatio Investigation.
Can you imagine the direction in which our country might have been guided had that circus not occurred? In the grand scheme of things, was the President’s indiscretion and admittedly improper conduct of such importance as to justify the diversion?
Maybe we could use someone similar to the character played by Alda in the West Wing episode. I’m still wondering what would have happened if Obama, in his quest to be the candidate of inclusion and crossing of lines, simply ignored the questions raised about his citizenry, Jeremiah Wright, Father Flager, Bill Ayers, Lewis Farrakan, Chicago Political Machine allegations, ACORN, and his purported devotion to Islam.
Here’s my final question. Who would you admire more? An honorable and noble loser, or a down and dirty winner?
When one stops to think about it, it is we who determine the nature of the discourse, by what we pay attention to, and how we respond.
As this piece is being written, I am watching an old episode of The West Wing on Bravo. The “conversation” in the episode was so close to the current “conversation” in our presidential race, that I had to find out when the series ended. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing.) It turned out to be 2006.
Part of The West Wing conversation had to do with courting evangelical Christians, uniting the Republican party, affiliation with shady characters from one’s past, and associations with ministers. There was also a discussion about the public’s seeming demand for expressions of religious faith from politicians. However, those issues are not the focus of this piece.
This piece is about uniting America. In the West Wing episode, Alan Alda plays a member of Congress planning to run for the presidency when Martin Sheen’s character, President Bartlett, leaves office. A Karl Rove type political consultant, played by Ron Silver, is brought in by one of Alda’s aides to counsel Alda. One gets a sense that Alda does not respect Silver. Silver even goes so far as to question Alda as to whether Alda thinks that Silver is really a spy sent by the opposition.
At some point during the exchange, Silver essentially says the following: “Look, I’ve spent 20 years driving a wedge between people. By observing what drives people apart, I also observed what brings people together. How about this? How about becoming the candidate of unity – the candidate who is capable of defining those issues and goals on which we can all agree, and the methods used to achieve them. We can highlight those ways in which people are connected and have the same basic values. We can also play to their emotions in that during these times of uncertainty, it is more important for us to be united than divided. If you do what I say, you’ll be elected as the candidate of unity.”
I found it to be of interest that Obama originally painted himself as the candidate of unity. He claimed that he was able to cross political and cultural lines. Interestingly, it was the politics of division, from within and without his party, which ultimately caused him to respond in kind.
Do we as a nation have the capability and motivation to unite and get past our individual differences? It has generally been said that such unification, and looking past our selfish interests, occurs during periods of “stress.” These might include war (at least those in which the whole country is invested), natural disaster, and common threats (such as a poor economy or the attack on the World Trade Center). Are we as a nation sufficiently in trouble (or worried) to prompt us to find some unifying principles around which we can rally?
To some extent that’s what occurred when oil prices hit the roof. We finally started a serious conversation on alternative energy sources and energy independence. (By the way, Jimmy Carter first tried to doing something about energy during his term.)
I find it a tad ironic that we are facing some very serious problems in this country, and we are still focusing on our differences. I still say that the Laughingman had it right earlier this year. If only McCain had nominated Obama as his VP, and Obama had done the same with McCain. That would have been the shot heard around the world.
I recently heard an author speak on C-Span2 Book TV. (I was unable to locate the book for purposes of this article.) However, it was someone fairly well known, since Newt Gingrich trusted him enough to provide him with his records and notes. In the records, the author located a set of amazing documents.
As most of you are aware, there was no love lost between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Furthermore, they did not trust one another. However, at some point in Clinton’s second term, they both came to the conclusion that they both loved their country. They also both felt that partisanship was having a detrimental effect. Erskine Bowles was Clinton’s Chief of Staff (1997-1998) at the time, and fortunately, Gingrich trusted him.
The author actually found a document outlining the terms of the truce, and stating the goals of Clinton and Gingrich. The document further contained a pledge to work together. Just before it was about to go to the press, and announced to the American public, the Monica Lewinsky story broke 2 or 3 days before. Thereafter, the Congress and the President were absorbed by the Fellatio Investigation.
Can you imagine the direction in which our country might have been guided had that circus not occurred? In the grand scheme of things, was the President’s indiscretion and admittedly improper conduct of such importance as to justify the diversion?
Maybe we could use someone similar to the character played by Alda in the West Wing episode. I’m still wondering what would have happened if Obama, in his quest to be the candidate of inclusion and crossing of lines, simply ignored the questions raised about his citizenry, Jeremiah Wright, Father Flager, Bill Ayers, Lewis Farrakan, Chicago Political Machine allegations, ACORN, and his purported devotion to Islam.
Here’s my final question. Who would you admire more? An honorable and noble loser, or a down and dirty winner?
When one stops to think about it, it is we who determine the nature of the discourse, by what we pay attention to, and how we respond.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Daily Trifecta No. 2
Quote of the Day:
“See! Even Colin is POWELLING around with Terrorists!! I Told You So! You Betcha!” Political Cartoonist John Darkow, October 20, 2008, © Columbia Daily Tribune, Cagle Cartoons.com (Unable to acquire rights to publish; if interested in viewing, go to http://www.politicalcartoons.com/archive/2008/10/20.html.
Fact of the Day:
During the Vietnam Era Conflict (1959 to April 30, 1975), the United States lost 58,159 soldiers, according to http://www.vietnamwar.com/.
Word of the Day:
MEME: “A unit of cultural information, e.g. a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.” The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, © Houghton Mifflin, 2002.
“A cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.” http://www.dictionary.com/ based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc., 2006.
“See! Even Colin is POWELLING around with Terrorists!! I Told You So! You Betcha!” Political Cartoonist John Darkow, October 20, 2008, © Columbia Daily Tribune, Cagle Cartoons.com (Unable to acquire rights to publish; if interested in viewing, go to http://www.politicalcartoons.com/archive/2008/10/20.html.
Fact of the Day:
During the Vietnam Era Conflict (1959 to April 30, 1975), the United States lost 58,159 soldiers, according to http://www.vietnamwar.com/.
Word of the Day:
MEME: “A unit of cultural information, e.g. a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.” The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, © Houghton Mifflin, 2002.
“A cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.” http://www.dictionary.com/ based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc., 2006.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Daily Trifecta No. 1
Quote of the Day: “This crisis is serious enough to make you believe in God again.”
Second Quote: “We’re borrowing from China to buy oil from the Middle East and virtually throwing it up in the air.”
Fact of the Day: The Republicans and Dixicrats mounted a 57 day filibuster (before a substitute bill was introduced) in connection with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before it passed.
Word of the Day: Hubris: overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance; wanton insolence or arrogance resulting from excessive pride or passion
Second Quote: “We’re borrowing from China to buy oil from the Middle East and virtually throwing it up in the air.”
Fact of the Day: The Republicans and Dixicrats mounted a 57 day filibuster (before a substitute bill was introduced) in connection with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before it passed.
Word of the Day: Hubris: overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance; wanton insolence or arrogance resulting from excessive pride or passion
Post No. 58: Debunking Myths and Misconceptions about the American Voting Public
When I was in undergraduate engineering school, one of the few non-engineering/science courses that I took was a political science course. The professor had us read one of the books then recently published (circa 1973) by well-known political scientists Dye and Ziegler.
The most significant thing that I can recall from that work is that most people do not make reasoned, analytical decisions about their political candidates. Instead, Dye and Ziegler concluded that people generally voted the way their parents voted – plain and simple.
I recently recalled this piece of research when a buddy generated a comment about the current presidential campaign. However, I acknowledged that new research might reveal other patterns, particularly in light of the massive amount of information available to us through the media and other sources, and the fact that our citizenry is generally better educated and more sophisticated. I just didn’t have the data or research to support my suspicion about the evolving mindset of the citizen voters.
Well, C-Span2 Book TV addressed the research issue yesterday, and again today. You can watch the presentation on your own schedule by clicking on this link. Andrew Gelman is a professor at Columbia University specializing in statistics and political science. He recently published his most recent book, Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do. During the presentation, Gelman and several of his co-researchers present their findings.
The following introduction is taken from the C-Span2, Book TV page for the program, copyright 2008, by the National Cable Satellite Corporation:
“Andrew Gelman examines the common thinking about the American electorate and contends that several long held beliefs are incorrect. Mr. Gelman argues that the political fissure in the United States does not lie between Blue America and Red America but rather between affluent Republicans and Democrats. He also contends that religion is no more divisive in the United States than amongst European voters and that church attendance is a greater predictor of voting among the rich than the poor.”
The program is hosted by the Cato Institute. (It should be kept in mind that even according to its website, the Institute is dedicated to “promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peaceful international relations.” Hmmmm. Oh well, they are still a respected entity, and all of us are free to stake a position and advocate for it.)
One of Gelman’s co-researchers argues that only a relatively small number of Americans are informed sufficiently to have an ideology, and thus the conflict in ideology only exists between the elite. Reference is frequently made to the works of Ronald Englehart, who tracked the cultural shifts that occur in societies internationally as they became more economically advanced in the post-modern era. To the extent that there is a counter-culture revolution, it invariably creates a backlash, or counter-counter-culture revolution, and in the case of the US, it was the rise of the evangelical Christians, otherwise known as the Moral Majority.
The results of the research are interesting, and will cause one to think. Enjoy it – it’s thought provoking.
The most significant thing that I can recall from that work is that most people do not make reasoned, analytical decisions about their political candidates. Instead, Dye and Ziegler concluded that people generally voted the way their parents voted – plain and simple.
I recently recalled this piece of research when a buddy generated a comment about the current presidential campaign. However, I acknowledged that new research might reveal other patterns, particularly in light of the massive amount of information available to us through the media and other sources, and the fact that our citizenry is generally better educated and more sophisticated. I just didn’t have the data or research to support my suspicion about the evolving mindset of the citizen voters.
Well, C-Span2 Book TV addressed the research issue yesterday, and again today. You can watch the presentation on your own schedule by clicking on this link. Andrew Gelman is a professor at Columbia University specializing in statistics and political science. He recently published his most recent book, Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do. During the presentation, Gelman and several of his co-researchers present their findings.
The following introduction is taken from the C-Span2, Book TV page for the program, copyright 2008, by the National Cable Satellite Corporation:
“Andrew Gelman examines the common thinking about the American electorate and contends that several long held beliefs are incorrect. Mr. Gelman argues that the political fissure in the United States does not lie between Blue America and Red America but rather between affluent Republicans and Democrats. He also contends that religion is no more divisive in the United States than amongst European voters and that church attendance is a greater predictor of voting among the rich than the poor.”
The program is hosted by the Cato Institute. (It should be kept in mind that even according to its website, the Institute is dedicated to “promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peaceful international relations.” Hmmmm. Oh well, they are still a respected entity, and all of us are free to stake a position and advocate for it.)
One of Gelman’s co-researchers argues that only a relatively small number of Americans are informed sufficiently to have an ideology, and thus the conflict in ideology only exists between the elite. Reference is frequently made to the works of Ronald Englehart, who tracked the cultural shifts that occur in societies internationally as they became more economically advanced in the post-modern era. To the extent that there is a counter-culture revolution, it invariably creates a backlash, or counter-counter-culture revolution, and in the case of the US, it was the rise of the evangelical Christians, otherwise known as the Moral Majority.
The results of the research are interesting, and will cause one to think. Enjoy it – it’s thought provoking.
Post 57a: C-Span Discussion re Affirmative Action Initiatives on State Ballots
At the time of this post, Shanta Driver (http://iis.stat.wright.edu/sos/bio_Presenters/shanta_driver.htm), Director of By Any Means Necessary, and Ward Connerly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Connerly), President of the American Civil Rights Institute, are discussing affirmative action ballot initiatives in two states.
Connerly, an African-American and a former Regent with the University of California system, was responsible for the elimination of affirmative action in governmental entities in California (through Proposition 209) twelve years ago. His organization has led the charge to eliminate affirmative action, through the initiative process, in other states.
This is interesting fare.
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=567787378
Connerly, an African-American and a former Regent with the University of California system, was responsible for the elimination of affirmative action in governmental entities in California (through Proposition 209) twelve years ago. His organization has led the charge to eliminate affirmative action, through the initiative process, in other states.
This is interesting fare.
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=567787378
Post No. 57: A Case for More Governmental Involvement
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Over this past weekend, we suggested that our readers watch a panel discussion on the economy aired on C-Span2 Book TV (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9889&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No). The panel consisted of authors and columnists not normally associated with a discussion of national economic issues, and yet we thought that what they had to say might be instructive.
After all, the folks with all the economic and financial training, and purported expertise, managed to foul it up. Why not hear the views of some folks with different perspectives? The panelists were Thomas Friedman (http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/), Barbara Ehrenreich (http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/), and Michelle Singletary (http://www.michellesingletary.com/).
Over the past couple of months while Friedman has promoted his latest work, Hot, Flat and Crowded (http://books.google.com/books?id=vQxnKb_GZvcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22hot,+flat,+and+crowded%22&ei=pgj8SMr1NJWyyQS_oKXFDQ), he has argued that although he does not advocate a Manhattan Project-type response to our current energy and climate change issues, he does feel that some government “encouragement” is needed.
During the course of the discussion on the economy, Friedman generally took the position that the private sector is better at solving problems and coming up with innovative solutions. Ehrenreich, out of concern that the audience might think that within the private sector lies the solutions to our problems, reminded us that the private sector had recently failed us, and plunged our nation into a precarious situation.
In thinking about it further after the conclusion of the program, I recognized that at least in the case of the private sector, the company dies and discontinues doing business, when it is not properly managed. In the case of government, it can make all sorts of bad decisions, adverse to the interests of its constituents, and the government will continue to roll on and collect more taxes. Consequently, there is not much incentive to change, adapt, or innovate. Only the elected leaders periodically change. The employees pretty much continue to do what they do, despite the failed policies of, and execution by, the governmental entity.
Several months ago, the local school board requested that members of the public attend the public hearing before the Guilford County Board of Commissioners to let the Commissioners know that the public desired that the full funds, requested for the upcoming school year, be included in the final approved budget. At that time, I chose to use the opportunity to make a point, not about how much money be spent, but the manner in which it be spent.
I argued on behalf of more funding for science, math, and other courses that would lead to more inventors, scientists, engineers, and people capable of inventing innovative products. I argued that this would ultimately translate to producing things again, from which jobs and tax revenue would flow. I further argued that a society, whose jobs primarily consisted of those in the areas of education, government, and healthcare, are essentially welfare societies, without an affirmative engine to drive the economy.
Yesterday, we posted an article about the techno-cultural divide in the US, which appears to be widening between the haves/educated class, and the have-nots/poorly educated class. (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-56-i-may-not-know-how-to-define.html.) We suggested that society come up with some innovative approaches to narrow that gap, in order to prevent the long-term, negative ramifications on society at large.
Later during the day, in thinking about my comments to the Board of Commissioners, I realized that I did not recall seeing a single, governmental official or politician participating in the blogging and social media and networking technology conference (http://2008.convergesouth.com/) which I had attended. That is not to say that they were not there; however, it sure wasn’t obvious.
There were participants and contributors from New York, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Charleston, SC, and the Silicon Valley. It was a major event, and yet there was no obvious governmental involvement of which I was aware. Politicians routinely show up at churches, hospitals, restaurants, schools, and such. We need government – private sector collaboration, if we are going to encourage the pursuit of science and innovation in our society, particularly amongst our youth. Just showing up at this technology conference, to acknowledge the role of, and encouragement by, government, would have been a nice start.
Perhaps if we had more accountants, business people, engineers, and scientists, and fewer lawyers as politicians, we might fare better. We had better pay more attention to science and technology. Our global competitors are making substantial strides in the world of technology, and with quite a bit of our help.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Over this past weekend, we suggested that our readers watch a panel discussion on the economy aired on C-Span2 Book TV (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9889&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No). The panel consisted of authors and columnists not normally associated with a discussion of national economic issues, and yet we thought that what they had to say might be instructive.
After all, the folks with all the economic and financial training, and purported expertise, managed to foul it up. Why not hear the views of some folks with different perspectives? The panelists were Thomas Friedman (http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/), Barbara Ehrenreich (http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/), and Michelle Singletary (http://www.michellesingletary.com/).
Over the past couple of months while Friedman has promoted his latest work, Hot, Flat and Crowded (http://books.google.com/books?id=vQxnKb_GZvcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22hot,+flat,+and+crowded%22&ei=pgj8SMr1NJWyyQS_oKXFDQ), he has argued that although he does not advocate a Manhattan Project-type response to our current energy and climate change issues, he does feel that some government “encouragement” is needed.
During the course of the discussion on the economy, Friedman generally took the position that the private sector is better at solving problems and coming up with innovative solutions. Ehrenreich, out of concern that the audience might think that within the private sector lies the solutions to our problems, reminded us that the private sector had recently failed us, and plunged our nation into a precarious situation.
In thinking about it further after the conclusion of the program, I recognized that at least in the case of the private sector, the company dies and discontinues doing business, when it is not properly managed. In the case of government, it can make all sorts of bad decisions, adverse to the interests of its constituents, and the government will continue to roll on and collect more taxes. Consequently, there is not much incentive to change, adapt, or innovate. Only the elected leaders periodically change. The employees pretty much continue to do what they do, despite the failed policies of, and execution by, the governmental entity.
Several months ago, the local school board requested that members of the public attend the public hearing before the Guilford County Board of Commissioners to let the Commissioners know that the public desired that the full funds, requested for the upcoming school year, be included in the final approved budget. At that time, I chose to use the opportunity to make a point, not about how much money be spent, but the manner in which it be spent.
I argued on behalf of more funding for science, math, and other courses that would lead to more inventors, scientists, engineers, and people capable of inventing innovative products. I argued that this would ultimately translate to producing things again, from which jobs and tax revenue would flow. I further argued that a society, whose jobs primarily consisted of those in the areas of education, government, and healthcare, are essentially welfare societies, without an affirmative engine to drive the economy.
Yesterday, we posted an article about the techno-cultural divide in the US, which appears to be widening between the haves/educated class, and the have-nots/poorly educated class. (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-56-i-may-not-know-how-to-define.html.) We suggested that society come up with some innovative approaches to narrow that gap, in order to prevent the long-term, negative ramifications on society at large.
Later during the day, in thinking about my comments to the Board of Commissioners, I realized that I did not recall seeing a single, governmental official or politician participating in the blogging and social media and networking technology conference (http://2008.convergesouth.com/) which I had attended. That is not to say that they were not there; however, it sure wasn’t obvious.
There were participants and contributors from New York, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Charleston, SC, and the Silicon Valley. It was a major event, and yet there was no obvious governmental involvement of which I was aware. Politicians routinely show up at churches, hospitals, restaurants, schools, and such. We need government – private sector collaboration, if we are going to encourage the pursuit of science and innovation in our society, particularly amongst our youth. Just showing up at this technology conference, to acknowledge the role of, and encouragement by, government, would have been a nice start.
Perhaps if we had more accountants, business people, engineers, and scientists, and fewer lawyers as politicians, we might fare better. We had better pay more attention to science and technology. Our global competitors are making substantial strides in the world of technology, and with quite a bit of our help.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Post No. 56: I May Not Know How to Define It; But I Know It When I See It – The Techno-Cultural Divide
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
A lot of us may not witness and appreciate it on a daily basis, but there is a significant techno-cultural divide in this country. I’m sure that you have heard of, or read about, this before; however, it is a far more troubling thing to witness in operation.
Some months ago, I was an instructor at a local community college, teaching math and English to adult students seeking their GEDs. Many of the students had fourth grade skill levels upon entry into the various GED programs available. On any given day, there were thousands of students coming through the doors.
At some point during my time there, the administration decided to add beginner’s computer courses, several of which I taught. The Tuesday and Thursday, 5:00 pm – 6:30 pm class, had reasonable attendance when the class was first offered. The initial Friday evening, 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm class had even better attendance. (I should note that this class consisted entirely of immigrants, from Egypt, Columbia, Mexico, Iran, Cambodia, and Togo, and not one, single, native-born American, including blacks and whites.
In each instance, there were open seats and underutilized computers. Consequently, I mounted a personal quest to inform other potential students, and their instructors, of the availability of all classes being taught throughout the week at all times of day, including Saturday morning.
As the new quarter approached, I generated a written schedule of all classes, made copies, and personally traveled to all of the GED classes being held during the morning and early afternoon, and during the evening. I explained to the students the importance of computer skills, and at one point mentioned that one could find a job using a computer.
Out of the back of the room came a startled utterance, “Mr. Logistician, you mean I could find a job using the computer?” Once I began to explore the various vehicles for doing so, many of the students requested copies of the course schedule. In thinking further about the young lady’s excitement, I realized that certain ones of us are not aware of vehicles or mechanisms, about which others of us know, and which we take for granted as having the capability of advancing our personal interests.
Come the new quarter, my supervisor contacted me and indicated that too few new students had signed up for the mid-week class, and that it would be canceled if I could not round up additional students. Despite my best efforts, the class was cancelled, although I did manage to convince some new students to attend classes taught by other instructors, during other time slots.
The Friday evening class went forward, but with only 5 or so students. Once again, all of them were immigrants.
Shifting to a whole different mindset, during the past 3 days, I participated in a blogging and social media technology conference in the southeast. It reminded me of the spirit, energy, and vision that I witnessed in the tech community when I practiced intellectual property law, and met all sorts of inventors and scientists.
During the first day, Microsoft representatives touted their latest web design software, capable of doing amazing things. Over the course of the next two days, I met all sorts of internet entrepreneurs, including Robert Scoble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Scoble), converting virtually nothing into something significant, while using minimal physical tools and a minimal monetary investment – primarily relying on their wits and ingenuity.
I watched some relatively young folks, primarily in their mid-20s to mid-30s, explain the internet businesses which they had created, and I marveled at their skills. During the last day, what initially began as a discussion about whether bloggers should adhere to some undetermined standard or code of conduct, transitioned into a discussion of whether bloggers had an ethical or societal responsibility to ensure that some of our readers were not “adversely affected” by such things as improper grammar and biased analyses in our articles.
And then someone summed it up quite well. The folks in the room all had the ability to speak to the educated, informed technical community, as well as to my former students. My former students, and others of similar educational status, could only speak one language, and perhaps also could not read, which further frustrated their ability to get ahead.
A couple of the young presenters were just crackerjack sharp and articulate as all get up. One indicated that he had been home-schooled. That got me to thinking about the role of parents. Interestingly, just an hour or two ago, I received an e-mail from a childhood friend of mine, thanking me for directing her, and her two children, to a salon type forum, where issues are discussed in a civil context by some very interesting new thinkers. What struck me was the fact that my friend’s family conducted their discussions of issues as a group, within their family.
There is such a wide, and I mean w-i-d-e, difference between the adult students (many of whom are in their late teens and twenties) and the folks with whom I spent my last few days at ConvergeSouth (http://2008.convergesouth.com).
Most of us do not walk the tight rope, or the zig-zagging road, between both sides of the cultural canyon on a daily basis. We generally chose only one world view.
Should we be concerned and alarmed about relatively minor differences in performance? Perhaps not.
Should we be concerned about the expanse of this particular educational chasm? Most definitely; and we all should. It affects us all. We all should figure out a way to do our part to narrow it.
No statistics or studies are necessary to justify adopting a different attitude about this divide. Just look around you.
Somebody, DO SOMETHING!
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
A lot of us may not witness and appreciate it on a daily basis, but there is a significant techno-cultural divide in this country. I’m sure that you have heard of, or read about, this before; however, it is a far more troubling thing to witness in operation.
Some months ago, I was an instructor at a local community college, teaching math and English to adult students seeking their GEDs. Many of the students had fourth grade skill levels upon entry into the various GED programs available. On any given day, there were thousands of students coming through the doors.
At some point during my time there, the administration decided to add beginner’s computer courses, several of which I taught. The Tuesday and Thursday, 5:00 pm – 6:30 pm class, had reasonable attendance when the class was first offered. The initial Friday evening, 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm class had even better attendance. (I should note that this class consisted entirely of immigrants, from Egypt, Columbia, Mexico, Iran, Cambodia, and Togo, and not one, single, native-born American, including blacks and whites.
In each instance, there were open seats and underutilized computers. Consequently, I mounted a personal quest to inform other potential students, and their instructors, of the availability of all classes being taught throughout the week at all times of day, including Saturday morning.
As the new quarter approached, I generated a written schedule of all classes, made copies, and personally traveled to all of the GED classes being held during the morning and early afternoon, and during the evening. I explained to the students the importance of computer skills, and at one point mentioned that one could find a job using a computer.
Out of the back of the room came a startled utterance, “Mr. Logistician, you mean I could find a job using the computer?” Once I began to explore the various vehicles for doing so, many of the students requested copies of the course schedule. In thinking further about the young lady’s excitement, I realized that certain ones of us are not aware of vehicles or mechanisms, about which others of us know, and which we take for granted as having the capability of advancing our personal interests.
Come the new quarter, my supervisor contacted me and indicated that too few new students had signed up for the mid-week class, and that it would be canceled if I could not round up additional students. Despite my best efforts, the class was cancelled, although I did manage to convince some new students to attend classes taught by other instructors, during other time slots.
The Friday evening class went forward, but with only 5 or so students. Once again, all of them were immigrants.
Shifting to a whole different mindset, during the past 3 days, I participated in a blogging and social media technology conference in the southeast. It reminded me of the spirit, energy, and vision that I witnessed in the tech community when I practiced intellectual property law, and met all sorts of inventors and scientists.
During the first day, Microsoft representatives touted their latest web design software, capable of doing amazing things. Over the course of the next two days, I met all sorts of internet entrepreneurs, including Robert Scoble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Scoble), converting virtually nothing into something significant, while using minimal physical tools and a minimal monetary investment – primarily relying on their wits and ingenuity.
I watched some relatively young folks, primarily in their mid-20s to mid-30s, explain the internet businesses which they had created, and I marveled at their skills. During the last day, what initially began as a discussion about whether bloggers should adhere to some undetermined standard or code of conduct, transitioned into a discussion of whether bloggers had an ethical or societal responsibility to ensure that some of our readers were not “adversely affected” by such things as improper grammar and biased analyses in our articles.
And then someone summed it up quite well. The folks in the room all had the ability to speak to the educated, informed technical community, as well as to my former students. My former students, and others of similar educational status, could only speak one language, and perhaps also could not read, which further frustrated their ability to get ahead.
A couple of the young presenters were just crackerjack sharp and articulate as all get up. One indicated that he had been home-schooled. That got me to thinking about the role of parents. Interestingly, just an hour or two ago, I received an e-mail from a childhood friend of mine, thanking me for directing her, and her two children, to a salon type forum, where issues are discussed in a civil context by some very interesting new thinkers. What struck me was the fact that my friend’s family conducted their discussions of issues as a group, within their family.
There is such a wide, and I mean w-i-d-e, difference between the adult students (many of whom are in their late teens and twenties) and the folks with whom I spent my last few days at ConvergeSouth (http://2008.convergesouth.com).
Most of us do not walk the tight rope, or the zig-zagging road, between both sides of the cultural canyon on a daily basis. We generally chose only one world view.
Should we be concerned and alarmed about relatively minor differences in performance? Perhaps not.
Should we be concerned about the expanse of this particular educational chasm? Most definitely; and we all should. It affects us all. We all should figure out a way to do our part to narrow it.
No statistics or studies are necessary to justify adopting a different attitude about this divide. Just look around you.
Somebody, DO SOMETHING!
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Post No. 55b: New Age Thinking: Behavioral Economics
There is a new way of looking at the world, attention to which is not being paid by our leaders. The mere fact that they spend so much of their time bickering suggests such. Earlier today on C-Span, Thomas Friedman suggested that the United States is like the space shuttle heading to some undetermined destination. He said that the rocket booster is leaking, and the pilots in the command module are arguing about the flight plan.
Take a look at what some very insightful and visionary people, who publish their thoughts at Edge (http://www.edge.org/), have to say about a new way of looking at the world and our role in it.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/thaler_sendhil08/thaler_sendhil_index.html
Take a look at what some very insightful and visionary people, who publish their thoughts at Edge (http://www.edge.org/), have to say about a new way of looking at the world and our role in it.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/thaler_sendhil08/thaler_sendhil_index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)