There have been few people in my life that inspired me. I’ve had three great English teachers in high school and three fantastic professors in college. My wife helps me to do good work—having a family is an amazing feeling and a good hunk of motivation. Last night I watched Barak Obama give a speech in St. Paul, Minnesota. I actually had shivers run down my spine and through my legs when he spoke. In all seriousness, the last time I’ve had that happen was while watching the rousing speech William Wallace gives to the Scots before the battle of Sterling in Braveheart. So, Obama is one hell of a public speaker. We all know this, but what does it mean?
For one, I think it’s pretty clear that Obama is well educated. Now, granted, some people are well educated and can’t speak well, others are smooth talkers yet can’t figure out how to put a square peg into a square hole, but Obama is different. I’ve heard Obama compared to JFK too often to accept that he’s all charisma. No, there’s more there.
He’s put together one heck of a primary campaign. Battling through irate ministers and a demographic age deficit has given Obama validity in his claim that he has the experience to run the country. I’m not saying that that’s all a President is going to face, I’m saying that Obama has the skills to cope, recoup, and come out on top. He has the smarts, the drive, and the perseverance to see things through. This is what our leadership has been lacking for the past eight years. This is the type of person we need at this crucial moment in our history.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Tech-ing Ourselves to Death
My students use their cell phones in their purses, in the front pocket of their hooded sweat-shirt, under their arms, or even down under their seats. Some are even good enough to text while they stare me in the eye. Just last evening I opened my cell phone and took a picture of my wife’s grocery list and then sent that picture to her phone—she had forgotten the list at home. Again last evening I uploaded three pictures of my old car onto Craigslist. By this morning seven people were asking about the car. In order to make a sales pitch to some colleagues I slid my 2.0GB thumb drive into my computer, downloaded the pictures of the car and brought them to work.
The phenomenon of Craigslist, the cell phone (which serves so many functions it’s a misnomer), or the thumb drive are just a few of the tech innovations that will change the way we look and think of our relationship with media and the printed/displayed word. Social web sites are quickly becoming a form of communication, and, so much so, that students are resisting writing a five paragraph essay more than I’ve noticed in the past. Their writing is quick, and to the point. (Some are already screaming, “How is that bad!”) Writing is changing, and I’m noticing the change in my own writing as well. Written expression is being redefined by the media itself—my Craigslist post consisted of a single sentence with a bulleted list.
What interests me is to question whether or not writing in this sense will have a negative impact on what we consider literature and, by extension, the significance on our cultural well- being. I notice all too often that students can’t stand writing that isn’t as flashy in description or tone the way a television or movie now is—authors used to expect imagination to complement the language; it’s not working that way anymore.
My college prep. courses are full of students who both read books and those who haven’t read a single book on their own. (These, by the way, students are very willing to confess.) How can these students co-exist in the same class? Easy. Tech. In a world where “copy and paste” has replaced “research and write,” students don’t have to read long passages in a novel to advance; they can simply use tools to get around that.
This isn’t intrinsically a bad thing. Why should students be forced to find a single solution to a problem when their world has presented them with twenty? Knowing there are different ways to solve a problem is a freeing experience, one that allows you to use methods that were never possible before simply because they didn’t exist. For example, on an assignment a student needs to explain how the protagonist in a story acquired a desire for power. They go to Google where they first enter the terms “power” and “literature,” and are instantly presented with the option to buy a term paper on power in literature (the site that pops up is called AcaDemon). Ok, so most students don’t have the bankroll to finance a continuing operation like that, so they skip to Wikipedia. Quickly zipping through this site, a student can peruse a plethora of subjects that deal with power. The point is, the student has so many resources at their fingertips, that they would sooner use these rather than their own noggin. That, therein, lies the problem.
What will happen to our society if the tech that provides us with the information becomes a vehicle for intellectual stagnation? Is it possible to still have innovative thoughts other than innovations in tech? My worries lie in the possibility that all of this tech will assist us so much that we’ll forget what it’s like to have to think through a problem, we’ll struggle to come up with original and meaningful discourse. In his 1980s book Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman unearthed the tip of a large boulder when he speculated that technology (tv specifically—it was the 1980s) and our insatiable desire for entertainment are leading to the decline of public discourse and literacy. Unfortunately, I’m noticing that his prophecy is coming all too true.
The phenomenon of Craigslist, the cell phone (which serves so many functions it’s a misnomer), or the thumb drive are just a few of the tech innovations that will change the way we look and think of our relationship with media and the printed/displayed word. Social web sites are quickly becoming a form of communication, and, so much so, that students are resisting writing a five paragraph essay more than I’ve noticed in the past. Their writing is quick, and to the point. (Some are already screaming, “How is that bad!”) Writing is changing, and I’m noticing the change in my own writing as well. Written expression is being redefined by the media itself—my Craigslist post consisted of a single sentence with a bulleted list.
What interests me is to question whether or not writing in this sense will have a negative impact on what we consider literature and, by extension, the significance on our cultural well- being. I notice all too often that students can’t stand writing that isn’t as flashy in description or tone the way a television or movie now is—authors used to expect imagination to complement the language; it’s not working that way anymore.
My college prep. courses are full of students who both read books and those who haven’t read a single book on their own. (These, by the way, students are very willing to confess.) How can these students co-exist in the same class? Easy. Tech. In a world where “copy and paste” has replaced “research and write,” students don’t have to read long passages in a novel to advance; they can simply use tools to get around that.
This isn’t intrinsically a bad thing. Why should students be forced to find a single solution to a problem when their world has presented them with twenty? Knowing there are different ways to solve a problem is a freeing experience, one that allows you to use methods that were never possible before simply because they didn’t exist. For example, on an assignment a student needs to explain how the protagonist in a story acquired a desire for power. They go to Google where they first enter the terms “power” and “literature,” and are instantly presented with the option to buy a term paper on power in literature (the site that pops up is called AcaDemon). Ok, so most students don’t have the bankroll to finance a continuing operation like that, so they skip to Wikipedia. Quickly zipping through this site, a student can peruse a plethora of subjects that deal with power. The point is, the student has so many resources at their fingertips, that they would sooner use these rather than their own noggin. That, therein, lies the problem.
What will happen to our society if the tech that provides us with the information becomes a vehicle for intellectual stagnation? Is it possible to still have innovative thoughts other than innovations in tech? My worries lie in the possibility that all of this tech will assist us so much that we’ll forget what it’s like to have to think through a problem, we’ll struggle to come up with original and meaningful discourse. In his 1980s book Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman unearthed the tip of a large boulder when he speculated that technology (tv specifically—it was the 1980s) and our insatiable desire for entertainment are leading to the decline of public discourse and literacy. Unfortunately, I’m noticing that his prophecy is coming all too true.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Once more America is a Shining Example of What Not To Do
Is it me, or does the rest of the world look at America and ask, "Why are Americans so hypocritical?" This is a major problem for a country that is trying its hardest to remain a world leader in the interests of maintaining national security. Its generally understood that we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to make America safer--at least, that's the rhetoric. Thomas Friedman recently wrote that cities around the globe are modernizing at such a pace that they are at risk of becoming American--in the sense that they consume vast quantities of energy without much thought to the way it affects the environment.
American foreign policy in the last decade must be written with the intention of making ourselves look foolish. How else can one look at it? We trapse all over the world stating that freedom and democracy must be promoted at any cost, when, at home, our democracy is in the process of strangling the world with greenhouse gases caused by consumer-driven policies. Yes, this country was founded on freedom, and that ideal is the well-deserved basis of American pride. However, should we be free to do anything? Literally anything? Do we have the freedom to ignore rationality and common sense? We as a country know of the impact our domestic policies are having on world ecology and, furthermore, human survivability; yet we do little to change it.
This is the most frustrating and unforgivable aspect of our democracy. Is the constituency being represented correctly? Is the problem that U.S. citizens all want a radical energy policy shift but are not being adequately represented in Congress? No, of course not. For some reason, we Americans enjoy leaving the wool over our eyes. This phenomena is as difficult to understand as it is to understand why, after major medical advancements in oncology and public health education, teenagers are still lighting up cigarettes. Common sense takes a back seat here and the most difficult question isn't "how do we change our energy policies?" it's "how do we change our attitude?"
As in most cases, there's no simple answer here. I'd like to believe that Americans simply need more education on the issues to realize the severity of the energy crisis in this country. However, it's hard to imagine that with the information coming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change we still turn our backs on the evidence. Like Hamlet, we believe that there's a better time to act and, like Hamlet, it may lead to our ruin.
American foreign policy in the last decade must be written with the intention of making ourselves look foolish. How else can one look at it? We trapse all over the world stating that freedom and democracy must be promoted at any cost, when, at home, our democracy is in the process of strangling the world with greenhouse gases caused by consumer-driven policies. Yes, this country was founded on freedom, and that ideal is the well-deserved basis of American pride. However, should we be free to do anything? Literally anything? Do we have the freedom to ignore rationality and common sense? We as a country know of the impact our domestic policies are having on world ecology and, furthermore, human survivability; yet we do little to change it.
This is the most frustrating and unforgivable aspect of our democracy. Is the constituency being represented correctly? Is the problem that U.S. citizens all want a radical energy policy shift but are not being adequately represented in Congress? No, of course not. For some reason, we Americans enjoy leaving the wool over our eyes. This phenomena is as difficult to understand as it is to understand why, after major medical advancements in oncology and public health education, teenagers are still lighting up cigarettes. Common sense takes a back seat here and the most difficult question isn't "how do we change our energy policies?" it's "how do we change our attitude?"
As in most cases, there's no simple answer here. I'd like to believe that Americans simply need more education on the issues to realize the severity of the energy crisis in this country. However, it's hard to imagine that with the information coming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change we still turn our backs on the evidence. Like Hamlet, we believe that there's a better time to act and, like Hamlet, it may lead to our ruin.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Flattening the World
One of the greatest things our technology allows us to do is communicate with a world-wide audience. My students are currently expressing their views on a blog that I run. However, due to the unknowns of the Web, the blog is private, which, admittedly, I feel is somewhat counter intuitive. I've been brainstorming a way to allow students to safely speak with the larger Web community. Even though our connectivity allows us to share our experiences and thoughts worldly, safety is a foremost concern. Ironically, safety has become the foremost concern outside of the Web too.
Blogs and other technomedia are the neopolitical forms of the Greek polis. Students, teachers, and world learners all need to embrace this technology but at the same time provide uniform and reliable security measures. Once we accomplish this, my hope is that our newfound technology will allow us to not only bridge the gap between geographic and political differences, but also bridge the gap between ideologic and philosophic differences as well.
Blogs and other technomedia are the neopolitical forms of the Greek polis. Students, teachers, and world learners all need to embrace this technology but at the same time provide uniform and reliable security measures. Once we accomplish this, my hope is that our newfound technology will allow us to not only bridge the gap between geographic and political differences, but also bridge the gap between ideologic and philosophic differences as well.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Testing the waters
If you really want to feel gut-wrentching horror concerning what we're turning this world into, read Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and Quinn's Ishmael, The Story of B, and My Ishmael. If we've ever needed to be poised and ready to change our destructive habits, now is the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)