Saturday, April 14, 2012

Reflective Blog Post

This class was a surprise. A big surprise. I had no idea that when I click the add button I was agreeing to a semester of changing paradigms, steep learning curves, and life lessons. I didn't think that school could be this interactive and that a simple GE class could really do so much for my education. Ariel talked about regular classes not being good enough anymore, that she expected more than she was getting, and I think I am coming to understand that.

Learning Outcomes
1. History
My historical Period was the 20th century and I loved it. My assigned reading was about progressivism, and again, I was extremely interested. I real enjoy learning about societal changes and how our focus and a nation changes over time in relation to politics.
2. Digital Concepts
Of all of the digital concepts, I have certainly most enjoyed learning about participation. I am so interested in how participation is changing and working in this social media world, and how we monitor and denote success through this participation. Over this semester, I know that i have certainly participated more than I ever have, not just though my blog, but through Google+ and all kinds of news sources. I have loved being able to use Google+ as a more academic social sphere, and have appreciated being able to share what i find interesting even more than talking about it myself. 

3. Digital Literacy
  • Consume- I have certainly consumed a huge amount of varied information this semester. I have been able to see so many sides of so many arguments. One that comes to mind is privacy. I have posted a few times about how much we know and how much the proverbial "they" know about us. 
  • Create- Creating all of these blog posts has certainly been a change in my normal schooling paradigm, but I think that the creating I am most interested in of this semester has been the creation of dialogue. I have loved being able to give and reticence feedback through Google+ and the others in class. My favorite posts are the ones that received the most comments. Creating the event was also a fun and intensive part of my class experience. Planning a function based on the core values of the class made me really think about each of them. 
  • Connect- Perhaps I touched on this in the section above. Connecting with other students and with others around the world has been a huge bonus to this class. I have a lot more confidence now to join in conversations on the internet and am more willing to say what I think. 
4. Self-Directed Learning
I feel as though this whole semester I have been teaching myself. At first it was to keep my head above water, but now I find that I really do enjoy it. I appreciate being able to say, hey, I want to know more about this, and being able to do it. I love learning from those who probably have very different opinions than I have. Mother Jones, for example, is an extremely liberal on-line magazine, but I love it because it makes me think. 

5. Collaboration
Oh boy, did I collaborate. The historical and digital group presentations were all about collaboration, and working so closely with a ton of people on the event was certainly the most collaborating I have ever done.  We all had to work closely together to accomplish very large goals, and I truly believe that this is one learning outcome that was hit right on the head for everyone in the class. We accomplished amazing things, and I am glad that I was able to be a part of that learning process. 


This class was crazy and slightly unorganized and moderately petrifying, but we did it. I am proud of what I accomplished, not just as a whole with a successful event and an e-book on the way, but as an individual with a broader outlook on my role as a digital citizen.

Event Report

Though technology seemed to be dead set against us, I am very pleased with how the event turned out. Hwanhi and I put a lot of work into this event, and I am so glad that everyone in the class really engaged and made it the success that it was.

My personal efforts to organize the event, and acquire and audience were moderately successful and quite varied.

  • I made announcements to over four hundred students in classrooms
  • I ensured that the poster went up all over campus from the information desk
  • I personally invited my friends and family and my 10 "special" guests who were:
    • Harly Richards- International Development student, acquaintance, interested in the idea of the CC and how that works in respect to our current economic system. She was able to attend for most of the event, and was impressed with how broad our expanse of information was in a single night
    • Lindsay White- Accounting Student, Friend, Was able to attend, loved the arts presentation. 
    • Cassie Reed- Accounting Student, Acquaintance, I invited her because she had expressed interest in my talking about the class before, and always asked questions about how and why we need to be more involved digitally, was able to attend in person. 
    • A.J. Butler- Water Polo Coach, interested both in me and my welfare, but also in how he can improve the standing and success of his team through social media, attended on-line. 
    • Austin Wheeler- Cadet at West Point, interested in how traditional education is and should be changing, wasn't able to attend at all. 
    • Suzanne Whitehead- Works for Hope International raising money to fund a school in the DR Congo, wants to be able to increase technology in their education eventually attended on-line.
    • Heather Desmond- Elementary School Teacher, interested in changing education. Wasn't able to attend.
    • Dr. Monson, my Political Science Teacher- I extended him a personal invitation, and then extended one to the whole class at his urging. Interested in how Social media is opening government. Attended on-line. 
    • Kristin Rob- Old friend from Germany, she and I played on the same team when she was a foreign exchange student to my high school. She loves anything to do with American Politics, and really enjoyed the event. Watched on-line. 
    • Eli Pariser- The author of my assigned reading, "Filter Bubbles". Never got back to me, so I doubt he watched, but it was exciting contacting him in the first place. 
  • I organized the order of the presentations
  • I put together the presentations which was a disaster. Right here I have a huge suggestion for the next event: Formatting. The reason the transitions were so bad was because all of the groups had different formats and different links. All of them should have been using one thing, so all Prezi or all google ppt. This would dramatically help the event, and would have made it more fluid. 
  • Collaborated with Hwahi on the script, the event philosophy, the purpose of the event, structure of the event (TED style blitz's)
  • Acted as one of the MC's
  • Organized music that we didn't actually get to use.
  • Worked with individual groups on their presentations, formulating ideas and editorializing some. 
  • Picked up the food with Dr. Zappala  
I learned an amazing amount of information from the planning process. It was great being able to work with Hwanhi, my superior in every way, who has had so much more experience planning event and organizing functions. I thought I was experienced, but now know that I have so much more to learn. It was a great experience and I am very grateful that I was on the event planning production team because I know that I will be much more prepared to do anything like this in the future. I enjoyed being part of the show and got a lot of joy trying to think about all of the ways we could ensure people had a great time and got what they came for. 

Thursday, March 8, 2012

The New Vote- KONY 2012

I had a thought today as I engaged in a KONY centered conversation with some friends. We were talking about why the movement was happening now and why we as American citizens should care. My friend asked why it mattered to have KONY posters and pictures all over Facebook and Pinterest and Instagram. She couldn't understand what purpose the social media made, after all, the point of the campaign is to call for a continuance of political support for a group of advisors to aid the local governments in Africa in finding and capturing Joseph Kony. At first I didn't have an answer for her. I couldn't say why it mattered, other than all the positive effects that come from a more unified public, but then it dawned on me.

A "Like" on a page is like a vote. When we "like" something, or we re-post something, or comment on something, we are voting for that thing. We as the public are saying, yes, I want this to happen. It is a form of activism. I saw this meme today on Facebook and thought it was rather clever, but also a little bit false. When we like a page, like Kony 2012 for example, we give our support and give a statistical representation of the popularity of that thing. This number is powerful to those higher up, it is a statistical way for our politicians to track what we are thinking and what we believe. Right now Kony 2012 has more than 44 thousand likes which is a huge number in such a short amount of time. To the crusty politicians who don't use "the Facebook," this number is extremely significant and could actually contribute to extended American support for the fight against Kony.

Regardless of whether this is a fight worth fighting or if America has any business getting involved, the American people have utilized social media to show their support for this particular cause. If anything, Kony 2012 has proven the effectiveness of social media and has shown in a much more broad and commercial sense what we can do with Facebook.

Event Possibilities

Hwanhi and I have been tossing around some ideas for the structure of the event, and we would love a little bit of feedback. I thought I would lay out a couple of options for you guys, please let us know what you think! Be critical, we want to know realistically what you think will or won't work.

Possibility A: Traditional TED-ish event.
- Each group would present their topic for 5 minutes, each presentation would be as lively as possible an would discus the tweethis of that particular group.
- We would have a live backchannel and live video feed for our digital audience.
- Though this method is tried and true, it is fairly lacking in audience participation. How do you feel about that? Do you want the audience to participate in your presentation?

Possibility B: Modified TED Event
- Throughout the night, a moderator would take questions from the backchannel to then discuss openly. This backchannel would be available by text and via internet to accommodate both present and remote audiences.
- Question and answer sessions could lengthen the time of our event, but could also facilitate a much more involved audience after the event is over. Thoughts?

Possibility C: Blitz Style
- Each group would get one minute to explain their topic, then would separate into groups of two presentation topics and would give their presentation to a limited number of the audience in a side-room. The audience members would choose which topic to follow and would be able to engage in a much more in-depth discussion and lesson from their respective groups.
- Groups would have more time to explain their tweethis and to facilitate a greater level of discussion.
- Logistically, this would be the most difficult method as we would need to procure a camera and literal room space for each set of groups as opposed to just the one, but do you think that this logistical problem is worth the experience it might give the audience?
Do you want more time for your group?

We would love to facilitate more interaction between the audience members themselves, do you have any ideas of how we could do that?

Please let us know what you think! We certainly need the feed-back.

Friday, February 24, 2012

My Focus: Participation

             As I looked over my meager number of blog posts, I realized what I am most passionate about in regards to our digital literacy; that people actually use it. In my blog post We Are Being Spoken to and Don't Even Know It, I talk about the shift in our society to this "I don't care" attitude. That post focuses mainly on politics, listening to the information and outreach our government is giving us, but I would love to be able to broaden that idea.
             We have so much, and yet we take it all for granted. We have the means to do amazing things, but so few of us actually take advantage of those opportunities. I talked in that post about being able to respond to and communicate with the President, but it doesn't have to be that grand of a scale. We have the tools to communicate with people across the globe that share our interests and beliefs. We have the opportunity to learn from people that are so much more educated than we are now, but are still able to share with them our thoughts and ideas. The concept of open education is one that I think is revolutionary; the idea that we should learn because we want to learn is something that is both amazing and completely contradictory to the way our society runs, but it shouldn't be.
             I have this completely unrealistic vision in my mind of people everywhere avidly learning for the sake of learning, for the sake of conversation and self edification. I think that though that vision is very unrealistic, sources of open education and the proliferation of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is something that we can and should strive for because it is now so possible to do.
             I would love to understand more about they why people resist educating themselves and participating actively in the global society. I know it sounds like an obvious answer, but it must be more than the obvious. My mom always says that she gets too much reality from life, why would she seek out more on-line? People are tired, people are bored, people would rather take the easy way and play a game or stalk a friend on Facebook rather than take the time to learn something. It's just too hard. But why is it hard? I know that I do this myself, I choose something that will turn my brain to much for a few hours instead of stimulating it, but, again, why?
             My thesis for this class is still rolling around in my head, but I want it to have something to do with the positive functions of technology for the educating and enlightening of people, and the stimulating of those people to work for the betterment of their society. Technology can incite change, it has and does daily; I want to see that change grow. I want to be able to talk about TED with all of my friends. I want to be able to discuss issues and feel educated about what I am saying. I want to understand and reverse the causes of inaction that we see daily. Not quite 160 characters, but it's getting there.
             I have gained from this class realization of the broadness and relevance of the technology and innovations that come through the internet, and I want to be able to share that realization with others.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Your Personal World: How much they already know

One of my assigned readings is this book, The Filter Bubble,  by Eli Pariser. Pariser a board member and former executive at MoveOne.org, and a leader in internet politics, explains in great detail through his book how much information we give up when we go on the internet. He talks about the privacy we don't have and about what corporations like Google and Facebook can do with the information we give them by simply logging on.

In this blog post, I want to focus on what exactly that information is. What do they know about us? How do they figure it all out? What are our rights as users? I know that I want to know exactly what I am allowing to be shared about me when I get on the internet.

According to Pariser, just location can now tell corporations a wealth of knowledge about us. He gave the example that he travels frequently from New York City to San Francisco. Not only can this tell whoever is watching what local sites or places to advertise, but can probably predict fairly accurately his political standing and occupation. Another means of using location would be to use the information of those around you. By using the information provided by your neighbors, your age, race, and economic class can be predicted with frightening accuracy.

Google uses this information and much more in a system called PageRank, a set of algorithms created by a team at Stanford, in order to determine which of the millions of search results will be the most pertinent to us personally. It takes into account, for example, the fact that I am an avid follower of fashion and make-up recourses such as Vogue and Marie Claire, so when I type in Mac in my search bar, the cosmetics company pops up first as opposed to the Apple company.

Turns out, we as users don't have much say in how our information is used. Google's Privacy Policy, though easy to understand and fairly transparent to the untrained eye, really gives no option to the user. In exchange for their product, they expect full use of any information the user can give all in the name of "improving the experience"for the user. The user was never asked if they wanted the experience improved. Or to what extent they would be willing to go to have it changed.

The goal of Google is to create a search engine that can practically predict the question before it is asked. According to Google founder, Larry Page, "We want to create the ultimate search engine that can understand anything...Some people could call that artificial intelligence." The arguments for and against the super-searcher are extensive and not the point of this post, but I want to pose the question, do you want a search engine that can answer anything? Do you think that a search engine that can answer hypothetical questions is worth the chaos they would inevitable create? Do we have a say at all?

Sarah Martin

Sunday, February 12, 2012

What's the Point of the Class Project? Here's One.

What I want to know is why we are doing this project. As far as I understand, it is mainly for our own edification. Sure, it would be cool if it were something that was interesting and interactive for other people, but all we can really hope for is for our work to be re-examined and maybe used by another classroom of learners just like us. Don't get me wrong, thats cool, but quite frankly, it sounds a little bit dry.

I propose we put our weight behind an actual cause. Or maybe multiple causes. We could learn about social literacy and digital possibilities through actually using them. The historical ties are all over the place. Our founding fathers didn't just write a book about what they learned, they decided to create a nation out of their knowledge. They were activists, not just conversationalists.

The fun project could be a great start. By creating a social change here on campus, we are not only using our skills of digital literacy, we could then compile that knowledge and then write a book about it, after we have actually done something with all of our hypothesizing. The Girl Effect is a movement that I have recently become very interested in, and I would love the opportunity to do more with it. But theres also the Action Against Hunger movement, the Global Fund, which leads the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in third world countries, Educate America, and so many more wonderful causes that could use our help.

I believe that we will best learn how to more fully function in our digital society and how to integrate the skills of digital literacy and active participation by choosing to act for a specific cause, something that we feel passionately about and that we want to be a part of. We will learn to participate not just because we have to, but because we have the skills to do so. I don't want to just write an e-book. I want to make a difference. What about you?

Fun Theory Me!

I did it, I jumped on the bandwagon, and I am pleasantly surprised at what I found. For a while, I wasn't really behind the whole Fun Theory thing. It sounded to me like a very commercial venture by Volkswagen, but then I really looked into it. Its amazing! I love that this movement has captured so many people's imaginations and that it really is making changes, one small thing at a time.

I think I was so resistant at first because I held the mindset that we shouldn't need to be entertained to do something good, we should just do it. "Should" being the downfall of that statement. I have faith in the human condition, I believe that we are good intrinsically, but the fun theory brought to my mind the thought that inaction isn't necessarily bad, just lazy. People leave their trash out of thoughtlessness, not spite; they take the escalator because it's just easier, not because they want to disregard their bodies.

I love that there are people out there working to make a difference through human action as opposed to human sensibilities. I think that there are a lot of people trying to make a difference by education and reform, but what it comes down to is action. If we can't help people make better actions, then what's the point? Fun is one great way that we can help each other do the right thing, whether that be recycling, taking the stairs or using a trash can.

I would love to see what we could do with the fun theory in our class. Making it a part of our final project is something that I think could be extremely rewarding and very impactfull in the long run. Yes making a book could be cool, but inciting a change right here on our campus could make a big difference.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Does Equality Dumb us Down?

I am not a huge fan of standardized testing. For me, they were just tedious and a large waste of time. This being an honors class, I think it's safe to say that most of you will agree with me. I remember finishing a good 45 minutes before the time was up and not being allowed to doodle or read a book or anything and it wasn't until high school that I appreciated the nap time. I couldn't understand why I was taking the same tests as other kids when I was in AP classes. My cousin attends OCSA, The Orange County School of the Arts. He is a drummer looking to go professional and is taking very different classes than most other teens, regardless of level or advancement. Why should he have to take those tests too?

The argument  for standardization is that testing enables a wide view of the abilities of school children all across the country, and specifically, what areas need help. It is also supposed to increase the readiness of individuals to perform well on SAT and ACT tests. With standardization, America can reach a core set of educational goals that meet the needs of the most students possible.

I don't understand how this is the most desirable option. With this method of education, yes you scrape some of the lower kids off the ground, but you also lose a huge amount of flexibility and sacrifice a large amount of success at the top. Children are not numbers, they are people with very different personalities and aptitudes. There must be a way for education to be conducted where students are challenged on a  regular basis regardless of their supposed slot in the grading scale.

Germany has an interesting way of doing just that. I played water polo for a year with a foreign exchange student from Germany and was always eager to talk with her about education. She told me that in Germany, there were three levels or tiers of schooling after one graduated from the 7th grade. At that point, students were distributed between three high schools, each with a different purpose. The lowest prepared students to join the work force after graduation. It taught various trade occupations as well as the general education system requirements. The highest tier was made up of all college-bound students who received the very highest test scores and were particularly motivated. The second tier was a mix of the two, most college-bound with very reasonable and attainable goals and aspirations. It was challenging to switch schools once a person was attending tier, but it was possible through testing and an interview process. Students were given the opportunity to choose the education that they though would be best for them and their future.

This system is very different from our system, and honestly, I don't think one exactly like it would work in America, but it is one example of how another country is combatting standardization.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

We Are Being Spoken To and We Don't Even Know It

          On March 12, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the first of 31 Fireside Chats. For the first time, America was able to sit down and listen as their president used the most progressive means of technology for their time to reassure them and to educate them about what was going on in the White House and across the nation. Over the radio, the president was able to reach over 90% of Americans. He was sure to make the information easy to understand, but answered complicated and staggering questions like the state of the Depression and the Banking Crisis. For the first time, Americans were unified in their media usage and in the message they were receiving.
          These Fireside Chats were amazing to the people. They loved the idea that they could be near the President even though he was so far away. They appreciated the effort taken to reach out and help them to understand. People were glued to their radio sets whenever the President would host a Chat. Nobody missed the broadcasts.
           Since president Roosevelt, each and every president has continued this tradition of addressing the people. Ronald Reagan introduced the Weekly Radio Address which was held every Saturday night until George W. Bush who replaced these radio talks with weekly podcasts. Our current President, Barak Obama, has taken these chats even further, making them weekly videos available one the White House website. On January 30, 2012, Barak Obama participated in a Google Hangout. This hangout was attended by Mr. Obama, the mediator Steve Grove, a Google employee, and five average citizens who had posted questions to the president and were selected to talk about the answers to those questions.
           We live in a country where our presiding body feels the need to communicate with us. Every week we get videos, articles, blog posts, all information from our government that we are lucky enough to receive. Did you even know these things existed? I didn't. I was under the false impression that the only opportunity we have to hear from our president was special occasions, press releases and the State of the Union. I had no idea that the White House had a website, or that Congress had a blog. Clearly though, these things are logical reactions to society now. The President should be talking to the people weekly. Congress should have a blog. Why, then, didn't I, an educated, middle class American, have any idea about the resources my government was offering me?
          We have talked a lot about education in the past week in our class, and I think that this right here is a huge flaw in our educational system. We are taught through social experiences and through the information we are given that the President and our leaders are separate, that they are uninvolved in our lives. It is now socially acceptable to disregard the President as someone not worth listening to. We are uninterested in what he has to say because we feel so disconnected from him and from our legislative bodies. I think that our government classes and political science classes should help us know how to care. Yes, I learned roughly how the various bodies work, but I still didn't know why it mattered. It is amazing to me to look back at these people in the 30s who had so much faith in the President. They wanted to listen, they wanted to believe that their leaders could make everything okay. They were willing to give the President and the rest of government the support needed to make things happen.
          In our various classes, we need to be studying how people actively participate in government. We need to be writing letters to the president. We need to be hearing from local and state elected officials. We need to watch the weekly Presidential addresses. We need to be taught how to have a voice in government, not just that we the people have the power. How can we exercise that power if we don't know how? We have the opportunity now to be more vocal than ever. We can create response videos, blog posts, and e-mails that actually get read. We have so much more of an opportunity to participate than people did in the 30s, but care so much less to do so. I know that at the very least, I will be watching the presidential addresses from now on. Will you?

Friday, January 27, 2012

I Am Exhausted

          I am exhausted. My eyes are tired, my shins are sore, my head won't de-fog. Whenever I feel like this, the first thing to go (meaning, the first thing I cut out of my day) is technology. I ignore people if they text me, I don't check my Facebook much less any other kind of social media, and my e-mails just keep piling up. I am a news freak but on days like this I don't even read the news. The internet becomes almost repulsive to me. I understand why, I am trying to distance myself, to give myself space and time to think. Anything would be better in those moments than a computer screen.Though I don't react quite as this guy did, I can almost understand where he is coming from.
          But this time I had a thought. How long will it be before I don't have a choice in the matter? Jessie Carter posted a video yesterday that got me thinking. It was a phenomenal video, depicting life in the midst of amazing technology. The people looked very happy, as all people in advertisements should, but today as I feel so drained, I couldn't help but think about how days like this would be if I could never get away from the technology. Right now I could shut my laptop and turn off my phone and filter it all out, but if the entire world ran that way, how could I ever escape? I feel very lucky to live with as much technology as I do, but how much is too much?
          I do realize the irony, here I am blogging about how much I want to get away from technology, but I wanted to see if it would help. Sometimes, when you don't want to do something, you just have to start, right? and then you get into it as you keep going. I'm not sure if it's working or not.
          I have lived in a time where technology was something you could escape from, at least for a little while, but I wonder if my children will be able to? Food for thought. I realize that this post doesn't necessarily have a historical application, but it was just too long for a tweet or a Google+ status.
         
         
         

Monday, January 23, 2012

When is Relativism Okay?

I understand the political argument regarding the size of government moderately well from both sides. I understand that the republican party wants a very hands-off approach of the government, they want a free-market economy, one that will drive the economy and that will enable individuals to act for themselves. The other side of the spectrum wants more government action, they want institutions set in place to protect those who simply cannot get on their feet and protection for the unexpected by making as much as possible regulated. Clearly, this is an overgeneralization, but I hope I'm hitting all of the main points.

My problem with politics is this: where is the middle ground? When is it necessary to say, okay, even though I am a stalwart republican, I think that a more regulated health care is okay because there are just too many problems with the system we have now. When is it necessary for a democrat to say, well, this didn't work lets try it your way. I think that these opportunities arise all the time, we are just to blind or too steeped in our own circle of society to realize it.

During the progressive era, I think that we saw this kind of melding of political ideals out of necessity. The circumstances were amazingly bad. Workers in factories were being paid less than it took them to survive, and thats if they were lucky enough to get a job. Farmers couldn't function because of devastating monetary deflation and the unregulated high prices of shipping. The middle class was farther than ever away from the top rung of society because of the rampant and exorbitant fortunes of a few people like the Rockefeller's and the Carnegie's at the expense of everyone underneath them.

Though these conditions were poor throughout the industrial revolution, it wasn't until the early 1900s that they got any attention. Writers like Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell led the muckrakers, the people who were brave enough (and well off enough) to speak out against the big businesses that were monopolizing society. With the publication and resulting horror of The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, people who had never seen the problem or who had been shielded from it were able to participate in fixing it. Through the flow of information, changes were recognized, but it wasn't until the political tides turned that we saw any real changes. The openness of information and the lack of censorship enabled people to individual start making a difference.

With the Teddy Roosevelt in office, one of the youngest presidents at that time, and certainly one of the most revolutionary for his time, came up to the plate and reversed the standard practice of a very republican government. He instituted programs that held the monopolies in check. He helped the labor unions gain recognition. With his square deal, he created checks on he food industry and workers rights. Clearly all of these regulations fall under the democratic political subheading, but weren't they needed? Yes, the country was seriously in debt after these regulations, but the economy was moving. People were on their feet again, immigrants were able to begin fulfilling that American Dream.

So when is the middle okay? In this case, it was okay years before the conditions of the country got so bad. Major corporations should have been limited before they decimated the economy and the living standards of so many, but they weren't, so the pendulum was forced to swing even farther to the left. George Washington warned again the polarization of parties, and I think that I understand more of what that means. But how can we help that now? How can we as a population function under the umbrella of neither the right or the left, and think about only the best interest of the country?

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Immigration then and now

During the 19th century, immigration in America boomed, but just like today, there were plenty of people who wanted it to stop. Ethnic minority groups grew exponentially and, as is the trend with human beings, there was always a group at the bottom of the food chain. One of the strongest arguments against immigration then was that more labor coming in in the form of immigrants would provide cheap labor, undermining  the people already working and forcing down wages.

The problem I am see in now though, is not that illegal immigration is pushing our wages down, but we are literally going and seeking out those lowered wages. Stores like Wal-Mart and Target use foreign labor and can pay workers as little as 50 cents per hour. American manufacturers cannot compete with this kind of cheap production and so we see factories and plants going out of business left and right. The ongoing argument with immigration is that in undermines our American system, but in reality, the American system is doing that all by itself. We as the American public demand the cheapest prices possible, and so, our providers of these products have supplied that, while creating one of the larges job deficits since the Great Depression.

How can we continue to make this argument when we won't protect the jobs we have?

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Romanticism- Can I sign up for that?

In the early 19th century, the budding movement that started in western Europe made it over the Atlantic ocean to America. Romanticism took form on the plains of this newly freed country, and began to shape and define the "American Dream". It was a cultural movement that encompassed art, literature, music, and even education. People began to see things for their beauty and divinity as opposed to their practicality. The Romantic movement was a strong reaction the the previous cultural norms of rationality and classicism that had fueled the revolutions of the previous century as well as the strong commercial and economical ventures of all major countries at the time. The early 19th century was also the time of the Industrial Revolution and was surrounded by war, so romanticism was a kind of escape from reality.
Washington Irving

 In America, the romantic period has some of it's most definitive works in the field of literature. Writers like Washington Irving, James Fenimore Cooper, Uncas, Nathaniel Hawthorn, and Walt Whitman wrote about the ideal, the possibilities of man and the supernatural qualities of nature. Writers esteemed to express their feelings of nationalism and pride in the America they saw and what they thought it could become. This movement also differed from its predecessors in the fact that it spoke not use to the wealthy, but to the common man, the peers of the writer, the fellow sufferers in a world filled with war. Writers wrote to lift spirits and to inspire awe.


Artists like Albert Bierstadt and Thomas cole painted with a style never before seen. They painted the land for it's beauty and for the sheer respect they felt for it. The nationalism felt in all examples of romanticism was never far from art of this period and showed a great deal about the inspiration artists received from the world around them to participate actively in American Society. 
The Rocky Mountains, Lander's Peak- Albert Bierstadt


There were certainly problems going on in the world at the time of the romantic period; wars were raging, America was fighting to become a stable and productive country, foreign and domestic affairs were simply a mess, but regardless of all of this, I have to be envious of this kind of mindset. We live in a culture today where it is almost trendy to be critical of our government and our nation as a whole. We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world, and yet there always seems to be something to complain about. I can't imagine being alive at a time like the romantic period, when the pop culture of the time was encouraging American audiences to be grateful for the beauty around them, to be open and aware of their capabilities. I argue that while this time in artistic and literary history may be called frivolous or irrational, we need a little more frivolous and irrational. We need positive thinkers that are louder than the clamor of complaints. There will always be something to complain about, but I believe that we also need to take the time to find something to praise about our world today. 


A positive and awe-filed media, where can I sign up for that? 



Monday, January 16, 2012

We Protest for Change With Change

All of this talk about SOPA/PIPA has really gotten me thinking about our current form of government. I'm also in a Political Science class this semester and as I was reading about the inspiration for our current constitution, I had an overdue thought. John Locke made a great contribution to our political ideology when he said, "And that all men may be restrained from invading others' rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation".(Second Treatise, Chapter 2). He was saying that law lies in the hands of those it governs, that the people have the right and the responsibility to change what needs to be changed and to give voice to those who cannot speak. 


This past year, we have been privy to watching, and perhaps contributing, to the largest protest America has seen in years. The Occupy Wall Street movement was the reaction of American citizens to actions of government that they deemed corrupt or unlawful. These thousands of people used their rights as citizens to voice their concern and upset. This protest was physical for the most part. People used their sheer physical mass to draw attention to themselves and to get their point across. All other campaigns or protests that have occurred within the last two hundred years have been conducted in this way as well, by physical and very vocal means. The Civil Rights Movement is one very notable example. Thousands were physically present to hear Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech and to show their support. 


The protest surrounding SOPA/PIPA, however, has taken a very different form. While protesters to these bills have been very vocal in their rejection of the legislation, they have done so in a completely new and very apt way; on-line. My realization was this, that technology has even changed the way in which we speak out against our government. The anti-SOPA/PIPA conversation has been going on for as long as the legislation has been on the table. It has been re-hashed, re-worked, dumbed-down for the newbies, and over-analyzed by the technological geniuses of our day, but still our government leaders talk about it as if it were this small, potentially annoying piece of legislation that might just be overlooked. We are fighting change with change. One of the main arguments of anti-SOPA/PIPA people is that the government is trying to control something that it doesn't understand, but as far as I can see, the problem is that the government doesn't understand the people it is trying to govern. 
Firefox add-on DeSopa circumvents internet blacklisting if SOPA becomes law


Our governmental bodies are functioning as they always have, with the same set of rules, the same set of ideals, but we as a nation have changed dramatically in relation to this cause. We are not getting up and shouting or marching down board-walks, we are talking about it on-line. We are discussing the issue with an audience that holds the same view as our own. That audience does not include our officials, apparently. Here we are, one more time, at the Tower of Babel, trying to reach out to on-another in seemingly foreign languages. The legislature considers the problem to be one of geeks and nerds, people with too much time on their hands and who aren't contributing to the tax pool fairly. The internet community sees a problem that could shake the very foundations of their livelihood being handled by money-greedy politicians who would sooner lie to them than shake their hand. I think that this issue, more than any other our nation has seen, is exposing the sheer vastness of opinion and polarity that we have to either deal with, or face grave consequences. 


My point? We as an on-line community need to be louder. They as our legislature need to figure out how to use a search engine. Compromise has to happen now while it still can. No, I don't think that SOPA or PIPA will pass, but they will not be the last legislature to come through regarding these issues, but are the first of many until we can come up with a reasonable solution to our current problems. 

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Education Now

What fascinates me most about any given century or era is the people that come to represent it. Undoubtedly, one of the people that has come to define the 17th century is Sir Isaac Newton, father of the telescope, calculus, the three laws of motion, and hundreds of other ideas that have come to define our lives. As I studied Newton and his influence, it amazed me how many areas of expertise he had claim to. I couldn't get over how amazing the breadth of his research was and how influential he was, not just in science, but in mathematics, religion, and astronomy.

Now, I understand that Newton is not a good representation for people of his age, he was revolutionary and an absolute genius, but his amount of knowledge made me think about the average people that were his contemporaries. In that age, a persons education spanned a wide humber of subjects, and was inclusive of skills like art and music and lengthy historical understanding. Knowledge was compacted and could be called upon at will in a persons mind, as far as I understand. Now though, because of this digital age and how much access we have to information, I feel that the way we learn has completely changed.

Education over time, even in the course of my lifetime, has shifted exponentially away from that kind of compacting knowledge. I now feel very confidant in the fact that my education is not functioning to give me certain facts, but to enable me to get the information I need to function in society and to be a contributive citizen. I hardly think, now, about the fact that I can find whatever I need on the internet in seconds. We have developed a kind of technological intuition; without instruction, we are able to figure out how to do almost anything on our own and are able to troubleshoot and fix problems without even breaking a sweat. My cultural agility isn't based on what I know, but how fast and how accurately I can get the information needed. Creativity is a much larger part of our culture now than 400 years ago, as is our willingness and eagerness to share what information we know and join the global conversation. Information is no longer static, it is alive and changing.

On an eternal level, I can't say which of these two types of learning is better. I really think that sometime in the next 10,000 years, we will have to master both. We will need to be able to think quickly and to compile information, but we will also need the patience and the determination to memorize and to know a lot of information and to understand history. But still, I really feel lucky to be living now. I love the fact that we learn the way we do, I appreciate so much our abilities to learn and adapt so quickly and love being connected to the other side of the planet through my computer screen. I can't wait to see what the future brings in the area of education, and how technology will integrate itself more fully in the classroom.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Google+...Plus?

I read a very interesting article in the NY Times today. Apparently, Google has merged its search engine features with its social media site, so when using this feature called Search Plus Your World, not only do you get listings typical of any other search engine, you get information from your Google+. The point of this new service would be to "...provide relevant information." according to a Google Fellow, relevant meaning anything and everything relating to you personally. Google also wants to integrate other social media into this new feature, so ideally, any social media you use, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, etc. would show up in your search engine. Facebook has declined the invitation as of now, and Twitter released a negative opinion of the idea which is cited in the article.

I don't know how I feel about this. On the one hand, it could be nice to be able to search for absolutely anything all in one place, I am constantly going through my Facebook looking for old posts or pictures and this might be the solution to that problem. On the other hand though, how much personal information would I be subjecting to outside control? Do I actually have as much privacy as I think I do? To stoke my curiosity, I just had to try this out and actually didn't find this new search any different than the old Google. Maybe thats because I am a beginner on Google+, but as of right now, I am not seeing the change in this new program. Time will tell.

Check out the article and join the conversation.  Google Adds Posts From Its Social Network to Search Results

Thursday, January 5, 2012

How Digitally Civilized Am I?

I would love to say that I am extremely civilized digitally, and that I can find my way around any internet site or program without a problem, but that is just not the case. I Facebook, I have had a blog in the past, I love things like Tumblr, but the only real motivation I have had for extensive internet searching or participation voluntarily is aesthetic. I love fashion and all things related and have participated in that part of the internet, but truthfully it is probably one of the most easily accessible genres as it is one of the most commercial. I am also a news junkie as of late, so I am getting better and better at getting the news I want from my favorite papers for free.
I am going to be come a journalist eventually, and in that field changes are happening so fast because of the digital revolution we are experiencing. The idea of being paid to write is a more foreign idea than ever because so many more people are doing it for free. I am extremely interested in how this change in the industry is going to pan out and what new forms writing and selling that writing will take. I know that to be competitive in that marketplace, I am going to need a great deal of digital literacy and am going to need a large understanding of what the digital world is and what it has come from. It could be a very scary career path, but it could also be extremely rewarding, and I am excited to see where a digitally enhanced future could lead me.