Dear Red States:
If you manage to steal this election too, we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.
We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford. You get Ole' Miss.
We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq , and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines, 90% of all cheese, 90% of the high tech industry, 95% of the corn and soybeans (thanks Iowa!), most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Berkeley, Cal Tech and MIT. With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92% of all U..S. mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally, 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the war, the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.
Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.
Peace! --Blue States
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Obama/Kennedy
I am going to periodically write what commonalities I see with Obama and Kennedy. For starters, the Rock Star effect. Part of this is just to keep this blog active, I am trying to do that for personal reasons.
So they are both rock stars, they have young, attractive families, and both needed a manager-Johnson and Biden-both part hacks that believe similar things, but are seasoned party movers-and-shakers.
Just hope Obama doesn't go to Dallas. No reason to, seriously doubt he could carry Texas.
So they are both rock stars, they have young, attractive families, and both needed a manager-Johnson and Biden-both part hacks that believe similar things, but are seasoned party movers-and-shakers.
Just hope Obama doesn't go to Dallas. No reason to, seriously doubt he could carry Texas.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Digital Divide
So, I'm doing an annotated bibliography about the Digital Divide-here is my first entry...
Light, J.S. 2001 Rethinking the Digital Divide Harvard Educational Review v 71 n 4, Winter 2001 Harvard University Press (?)
This being the first article of this bibliography, I will define the nature of the “Digital Divide” in writing about it. Most of the other articles also contain a definition of it, as well as historical accounts of previous technological divides in our society. The Digital Divide, simply put, is the inequality of distribution of technology. In our day, computer ownership, usage, and access to Internet are the main focus, but this happened with wiring our country with electricity, telephone, and cable television. Disparities to access were noted more prominently in rural communities, both black and white, than urban communities. The disparity became more prominent in urban communities with the advent of cable television.
The article “Rethinking the Digital Divide” discusses the concept of what we call “The Digital Divide”, and how “solving” it through increased access to technology is not enough to really close it. Two main previous examples are used to illustrate how simply increasing access to technology does not necessarily solve a problem.
In the era of early cable television, the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, there was not the technological determinism that predominates the current debate. Cable television was not seen as a cure-all to social disparity problems. It was discussed as part of a larger debate on how to improve life for economically disadvantaged citizens. Today, there is a focus on the idea that if we provide access to the Internet to everyone, it will significantly improve the situation for our society’s least advantaged members. True, as of 2000 approximately twice as many White and Asian households had access to the Internet than Black or Hispanic households. The point of the article is that simply fixing this will not fix the larger problem. A parallel is drawn between this and the access to calculators in schools being essentially fixed, yet scores on standardized tests did not appreciate commensurately. One can argue that the means of measurement are flawed, but for the purposes of this discussion we will take it as a given that standardized tests are at least a passable measurement of mathematical ability. The author argues that even though computers and Internet access can be seen as qualitatively different than cable television and calculators, there must be more focus on using this tool in a way that gives advantages to everyone. Increased relevant content, increased ownership of internet-based enterprises, and increased usage, not just availability, of Internet connections in urban schools are points she makesThe Digital Divide must not be addressed just as a quantitative problem, but a qualitative one. As the author puts it “…fastening such hopes (for a more equal future society) onto computers and the Internet evades the complex causes of inequality and instead focuses on treating one of its symptoms, unequal access to technology, with the assumption that closing one gap will close others” (pg. 6).
Light, J.S. 2001 Rethinking the Digital Divide Harvard Educational Review v 71 n 4, Winter 2001 Harvard University Press (?)
This being the first article of this bibliography, I will define the nature of the “Digital Divide” in writing about it. Most of the other articles also contain a definition of it, as well as historical accounts of previous technological divides in our society. The Digital Divide, simply put, is the inequality of distribution of technology. In our day, computer ownership, usage, and access to Internet are the main focus, but this happened with wiring our country with electricity, telephone, and cable television. Disparities to access were noted more prominently in rural communities, both black and white, than urban communities. The disparity became more prominent in urban communities with the advent of cable television.
The article “Rethinking the Digital Divide” discusses the concept of what we call “The Digital Divide”, and how “solving” it through increased access to technology is not enough to really close it. Two main previous examples are used to illustrate how simply increasing access to technology does not necessarily solve a problem.
In the era of early cable television, the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, there was not the technological determinism that predominates the current debate. Cable television was not seen as a cure-all to social disparity problems. It was discussed as part of a larger debate on how to improve life for economically disadvantaged citizens. Today, there is a focus on the idea that if we provide access to the Internet to everyone, it will significantly improve the situation for our society’s least advantaged members. True, as of 2000 approximately twice as many White and Asian households had access to the Internet than Black or Hispanic households. The point of the article is that simply fixing this will not fix the larger problem. A parallel is drawn between this and the access to calculators in schools being essentially fixed, yet scores on standardized tests did not appreciate commensurately. One can argue that the means of measurement are flawed, but for the purposes of this discussion we will take it as a given that standardized tests are at least a passable measurement of mathematical ability. The author argues that even though computers and Internet access can be seen as qualitatively different than cable television and calculators, there must be more focus on using this tool in a way that gives advantages to everyone. Increased relevant content, increased ownership of internet-based enterprises, and increased usage, not just availability, of Internet connections in urban schools are points she makesThe Digital Divide must not be addressed just as a quantitative problem, but a qualitative one. As the author puts it “…fastening such hopes (for a more equal future society) onto computers and the Internet evades the complex causes of inequality and instead focuses on treating one of its symptoms, unequal access to technology, with the assumption that closing one gap will close others” (pg. 6).
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Care2
So, I have become active in a web discussion on www.care2.com
First and foremost, this is a VERY good site-check it out if you are at all interested in changing the direction of our nation and our world. I didn't find a whole lotta groups that I wanted to join and discuss on, but the DNC (Democrats) have one that I posted on. the current discussion is about "reverse discrimination"-here is a link to my 2 cents...http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=51&pst=1072094
Someone actually responded! I even got a green star! (their equivalent of a gold star)
I have a lot of experience with a BBS type of thing. I lurked and participated on some BBSs in the mid to late 1990's and early 2000's with topics as diverse as hacking, hippy living, and gourmet cooking. Technically, these things do not fall under the guise of "Web 2.0", but I believe they were the forerunners to social networing sites. They were the begining of people using the web for more than just research, but actually interacting. At times, the discussions I was in got very heated, heh, partially because of me. I wasn't a "troll" or a "flamer" but I definately fanned a few flames. It was an easy stretch to get in on a discussion about politics. I actually just posted another post about "our" war-being the war within Democrats, heh, very fanning.
I like discussion groups. I like the exchange of ideas within some perameters of a topic. This makes sense-given the chance my idea of a good evening is coffee and good conversation.
First and foremost, this is a VERY good site-check it out if you are at all interested in changing the direction of our nation and our world. I didn't find a whole lotta groups that I wanted to join and discuss on, but the DNC (Democrats) have one that I posted on. the current discussion is about "reverse discrimination"-here is a link to my 2 cents...http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=51&pst=1072094
Someone actually responded! I even got a green star! (their equivalent of a gold star)
I have a lot of experience with a BBS type of thing. I lurked and participated on some BBSs in the mid to late 1990's and early 2000's with topics as diverse as hacking, hippy living, and gourmet cooking. Technically, these things do not fall under the guise of "Web 2.0", but I believe they were the forerunners to social networing sites. They were the begining of people using the web for more than just research, but actually interacting. At times, the discussions I was in got very heated, heh, partially because of me. I wasn't a "troll" or a "flamer" but I definately fanned a few flames. It was an easy stretch to get in on a discussion about politics. I actually just posted another post about "our" war-being the war within Democrats, heh, very fanning.
I like discussion groups. I like the exchange of ideas within some perameters of a topic. This makes sense-given the chance my idea of a good evening is coffee and good conversation.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
del.ici.ous - eh...
So I just used Del.ici.ous for tagging some websites. I dunno, if I were to have to do some research on the web that did not have any restrictions to academic article, then this site is ok. I mean, I guess one could get on the site and do a search for something they are trying to research and see what other people have found, but I am a pretty start-from-scratch kinda guy. I would much rather start by Googling the term, and seeing what it comes up with. As far as I understand the concept of Google, aren't the results rated by how many other links there are to that particular page-or something to that effect? So doesn't Google already do what del.ici.ous does? It doesn't make sense to me to refine the search that much, thus limiting the results one finds. This may be slower, but more precise and more encompassing.
On the whole I see the value of del.ici.ous, but just not for me. I think I'll probably delete the tag button after this class is finished.
On the whole I see the value of del.ici.ous, but just not for me. I think I'll probably delete the tag button after this class is finished.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Response to Podcast
First of all, learning from a podcast is FER SUX-I often had to stop, rewind, and listen again.
Ok, now for the real response:
One thing that struck me is that she said "I hope they (educators) live up to the challenge-so this person is not an educator? I don't know how credible anything else she said can be given that fact. The whole "walk a mile in my moccasins" kind of thing.
Good primer on SNS - she should write "SNS for Dummies"
One point she made: preferences are displayed by the network of friends. Back in the day in BBS's one's preferences are displayed by what you said, where you said it, who you said it to, and how you said it. Nowadays it is just who you know. Though this is important, I lament for the generation coming up that this is the only thing they are about. I consider myself an amateur but one with long standing in the cyber-community. I was on IRC when it was just us nerdy types on there. I played all the first generation of FPS games (Wolfenstein, Doom, etc...) and I pwned. (if ya don't know what that means, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned ) The point is, us older Gen-Xers can see some serious issues with SNS from the point of view of people who are technologically savvy. We're not the ostriches, but the emus. (why an emu? I dunno, I just think they are good solid birds, similar to ostriches, but without the "head in the sand" issue) We can speak the language, and we have something different to say. Personally, I think Facebook is WAY too focused on friends and communication, and not enough on blogging, issue discussion, and political activism.
She had a good point about these aspects of "Mediated Public Spaces"- her term for SNS
persistence-I don't want what my children say at 13 or 15 or whatever to be accessible to their future employers. Hell, I wouldn't want things I wrote at 25 to be accessible now. One good thing about blogs-you can DELETE things!
search ability-good and bad. Parents can use the find feature to find out things about their kids, but the flip side is, so can predators.
replicability-hello plagiarism! It was bad once things went digital, now what are the chances that a term paper can be sold online? Pretty good. The flip side is, the "hey that's cool!" thing-look at this blog, it's my version of it.
invisible audiences-Being primarily Concrete Operations thinkers, I do not think that teenagers can comprehend the idea that others could be reading this, and that their words are permanent. This natural deficiency can be exploited.
Good points about context and scale. On the scale side of things, I agree, teenagers have no clue how "loud" their voices are on the Internet.
She touches lightly on the legal aspect of SNS profiles. I would like to expand on that. Our privacy laws are not "up to speed" with current technology. As of right now, anything on an SNS profile could be used as evidence. An argument for this is that there is overt intent to make this information public. It is not unlike climbing the tallest building in town and announcing something with a megaphone.
I like her ideas about proactive uses of SNS profiles-helping kids at risk or feeling depressed, etc... 'course we had that on BBS's- plenty of them were support groups. What's funny, is that kids will think they're inventing something new. Heh, they probably think that about the Internet too, and we all know Al Gore invented that.
The other suggestions that teachers can use...finnally!...A-#1 idea we need to get across to kids: I (your teacher) and ANYONE ELSE can see your profile, create it accrodingly. It is a great power to have this public space on the internet. As Peter Parker once said "With great power comes great responsibility."
Ok, now for the real response:
One thing that struck me is that she said "I hope they (educators) live up to the challenge-so this person is not an educator? I don't know how credible anything else she said can be given that fact. The whole "walk a mile in my moccasins" kind of thing.
Good primer on SNS - she should write "SNS for Dummies"
One point she made: preferences are displayed by the network of friends. Back in the day in BBS's one's preferences are displayed by what you said, where you said it, who you said it to, and how you said it. Nowadays it is just who you know. Though this is important, I lament for the generation coming up that this is the only thing they are about. I consider myself an amateur but one with long standing in the cyber-community. I was on IRC when it was just us nerdy types on there. I played all the first generation of FPS games (Wolfenstein, Doom, etc...) and I pwned. (if ya don't know what that means, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned ) The point is, us older Gen-Xers can see some serious issues with SNS from the point of view of people who are technologically savvy. We're not the ostriches, but the emus. (why an emu? I dunno, I just think they are good solid birds, similar to ostriches, but without the "head in the sand" issue) We can speak the language, and we have something different to say. Personally, I think Facebook is WAY too focused on friends and communication, and not enough on blogging, issue discussion, and political activism.
She had a good point about these aspects of "Mediated Public Spaces"- her term for SNS
persistence-I don't want what my children say at 13 or 15 or whatever to be accessible to their future employers. Hell, I wouldn't want things I wrote at 25 to be accessible now. One good thing about blogs-you can DELETE things!
search ability-good and bad. Parents can use the find feature to find out things about their kids, but the flip side is, so can predators.
replicability-hello plagiarism! It was bad once things went digital, now what are the chances that a term paper can be sold online? Pretty good. The flip side is, the "hey that's cool!" thing-look at this blog, it's my version of it.
invisible audiences-Being primarily Concrete Operations thinkers, I do not think that teenagers can comprehend the idea that others could be reading this, and that their words are permanent. This natural deficiency can be exploited.
Good points about context and scale. On the scale side of things, I agree, teenagers have no clue how "loud" their voices are on the Internet.
She touches lightly on the legal aspect of SNS profiles. I would like to expand on that. Our privacy laws are not "up to speed" with current technology. As of right now, anything on an SNS profile could be used as evidence. An argument for this is that there is overt intent to make this information public. It is not unlike climbing the tallest building in town and announcing something with a megaphone.
I like her ideas about proactive uses of SNS profiles-helping kids at risk or feeling depressed, etc... 'course we had that on BBS's- plenty of them were support groups. What's funny, is that kids will think they're inventing something new. Heh, they probably think that about the Internet too, and we all know Al Gore invented that.
The other suggestions that teachers can use...finnally!...A-#1 idea we need to get across to kids: I (your teacher) and ANYONE ELSE can see your profile, create it accrodingly. It is a great power to have this public space on the internet. As Peter Parker once said "With great power comes great responsibility."
GSLD
I would like to talk to you today about GSLD-otherwise known as Grad Student Loquaciousness Disorder. GSLD is a pervasive, chronic, and contagious disease. It often starts around late September and late January as first assignments come due in many courses. Often, only one student will get it, but after seeing the five pages written for a three page assignment, other students catch it. Writing five pages when only three are required is a minor case, but often symptoms grow exponentially as the semester progresses. There are no known causes for GSLD, but many experts believe it may come from one-upmanship, insecurity, and unclear perimeters from professors. The Union of American Professors has denied any involvement in the contagion, but many grad students beg to differ. What we do know is this; GSLD exists, GSLD is growing, GSLD is contagious, and GSLD can cause severe carpal-tunnel syndrome if left untreated. Treatments recommended by the American Union of Grad Students are winter ales, comfy hand-rests, and Costa Rica.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
