Some recent facebook posts have compelled me to write. I was astonished by the amount of people who had such negative things to say about the United State’s altruistic approach to the people of Haiti! Here is the most infuriating post. “Shame on you America: the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment - yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations. 99% of people won't have the guts to copy and repost this!!!!!”
Are you people kidding me? First of all….we are certainly not the only country with homeless people who have no shelter! In fact, I would venture to say that most of our homeless people have better accommodations than most third world inhabitants! Children going to bed without eating? THESE PEOPLE NEVER EAT! They don’t have clean water. We throw more food in our dumpsters than some of these people will see in a lifetime! I won’t even broach the subject of medication! Medication is a luxury, a distant dream for these people.
I suppose a country whose biggest epidemic is over consumption would breed people who are so clueless to the plight of others. We don’t get to compare our recession and unfortunate state of current affairs to that of the Haitian people, there is no comparison! Haiti was devastated by an unforeseen natural disaster. Haiti was already the poorest country in the western hemisphere, and now they are in total ruin. We cannot begin to understand the magnitude of such a situation. 200,000 people were killed in just minutes! Hundreds of prisoners escaped from prison, who knows when and if they will be found. The government in Haiti is so corrupt it makes ours look like a boy scout troop, and we all know that is hard to do! The money raised for Haiti has to be carefully distributed so as not to fall in to the hands of the wrong people and the wrong people are the ones who are supposed to protect them!
The mere fact that we are able to donate upwards of five hundred million dollars in thirteen days should show you how much better off Americans are than Haitians. Our government was able to donate millions more because that is what we do. We are, if nothing else willing to lend support to our neighbors when they need us. If we give up our philanthropic efforts we will have lost one of our greatest attributes.
The United States is in the situation it is in because our government is too busy treating politics like a game of red rover….Red rover Red rover send Massachusetts on over ! Nothing will change with a government more concerned about votes than legislation. We can afford to help Haiti, we can’t afford to sit around and expect things to change here if no one is willing to pass a bill!
So, shame on me, I will be one of the 99% of people who do not repost that ridiculous status update. For those of you who do post that status or who do feel that way, all I have to offer is this. GET SOME PERSPECTIVE!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Monday, March 3, 2008
Hillary who?
I am curious as to what happened to Hillary's last name. Back when she was the first lady she made it very clear she kept her maiden name. The hyphenated last name was a seeming symbol of Independence and feminine pride, a symbol that caused a lot of talk during the Clinton presidency. I can't help but find it strange she no longer feels the need to take pride in her maiden name. It seems as if the woman behind the man needed to make a point in order to prove her strength, but the woman running for President of the United States chose to stick to only her married name. Listen, I have nothing against the Clinton name, I have nothing against women who take the name of their husband, my problem is with the fact that Hillary- not Rodham -Clinton has chosen to pick and choose when to use which name. I can't help but find it contrived that the wife of a cheating husband finds it important to show a bit of her feminist side and less important now that she is running for office. Dropping the maiden name makes Hillary much less a threat to traditional people who can't relate to a woman who hyphenates her name, women who find it too extreme, too feminist. In this era of blame game politics I can't help but think changing your name in order to gain votes where needed is the most extreme case of "flip-flopping" we have seen yet! Names seem to be a big concern in this race for some feeble minded Americans, so why is there so much talk about Barack Hussein Obama (who by the way did not change his name, even though the middle one is a bit unfortunate these days) and no talk about Hillary deciding her values could be put on the back burner to impress middle America. Did she really think no one would notice?
Monday, October 8, 2007
Natural Born Cyborgs
Clark, Andy. Natural Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford: New York, 2003.
Clark argues the idea of humans as natural cyborgs. Clark wants to make the point that human beings unlike other animals, have the ability to extend their intelligence and brain power beyond the limits of their skin. Clark suggests that our brains were created in such a way to seek outside intelligence. For example, when dealing with evolution our brains are geared toward collaborating with "external non biological sources of order to better solve the problems of survival and reproduction" (Clark, 5)
Clark's goal in this book is to change the modern concept of cyborgs. The modern idea of cyborg is that of man merging with some sort of electronic circuitry. Clark's goal is to reshape that image "revealing it as a disguised vision of our biological nature." (Clark, 5)
Clark continues to elaborate on his idea by trying to convince the reader to look at technology not as an extension of nature, but look at the brain and its ability to understand technology. The ability for the brain to take in such information does not involve wires or implants but our openness to process.
I think Clark has something going here. I do think there has to be a reason other than the thumb for humans to be so far advanced beyond other animals. The brain as our key to survival makes sense. We clearly are designed differently. Technology is after all only here because of the human mind. We have to go back to Darwin and survival of the fittest. Technology, although it seems inhumane is part of human evolution, those not willing to learn will eventually become obsolete. Like the human appendix they will just sit there not contributing to society and eventually be lost.
Clark argues the idea of humans as natural cyborgs. Clark wants to make the point that human beings unlike other animals, have the ability to extend their intelligence and brain power beyond the limits of their skin. Clark suggests that our brains were created in such a way to seek outside intelligence. For example, when dealing with evolution our brains are geared toward collaborating with "external non biological sources of order to better solve the problems of survival and reproduction" (Clark, 5)
Clark's goal in this book is to change the modern concept of cyborgs. The modern idea of cyborg is that of man merging with some sort of electronic circuitry. Clark's goal is to reshape that image "revealing it as a disguised vision of our biological nature." (Clark, 5)
Clark continues to elaborate on his idea by trying to convince the reader to look at technology not as an extension of nature, but look at the brain and its ability to understand technology. The ability for the brain to take in such information does not involve wires or implants but our openness to process.
I think Clark has something going here. I do think there has to be a reason other than the thumb for humans to be so far advanced beyond other animals. The brain as our key to survival makes sense. We clearly are designed differently. Technology is after all only here because of the human mind. We have to go back to Darwin and survival of the fittest. Technology, although it seems inhumane is part of human evolution, those not willing to learn will eventually become obsolete. Like the human appendix they will just sit there not contributing to society and eventually be lost.
Monday, October 1, 2007
The Art and Science of Handwriting
Naomi Baron. The Art and Science of Handwriting
Baron takes us on a journey through the history of handwriting in this essay. Handwriting as a societal issue began with professionals. Doctors, Lawyers and Clergy were the most obvious group of people using handwriting in their trade, the next group was ladies, gentlemen and their secretaries. Baron points out that the third group was most influential in paving the way to our modern understanding of handwriting. Employees in commerce were a widely growing group. New jobs were being created, jobs in which writing was a needed skill. Copy writing was the first method in which these laborers learned the skill. These people were not writing as a means of getting a point across, they were simply copying the works of others. Eventually the practice of copy write became a useful tool in understanding the shapes they were writing. Handwriting then became a method in which to define class. Proper handwriting was not necessarily a sign of upper class status. People with better handwriting were considered lower class. Aristocrats in France in fact created a form of illegible handwriting to separate themselves. It was during this time that handwriting was used to differentiate not only classes but people themselves. Handwriting was used to find prospective spouses, criminals, and employees. Soon after handwriting began to be considered mechanical, this would change it into a science. People did not consider handwriting as a discipline until the mid to late 19th century when Platt Rogers Spencer began "coaching" the science of handwriting through commands and instruction. This was called Spencerian. Later in the century another American eschewed Spencer's method and focused on another style of writing. Norman Palmer focused less on the beauty of the handwriting and more on the eligibility, and usability of the penmanship saying that "no attempt is made to make the penmanship more beautiful than is consistent with utility."1 There is a question as to whether Spencer and Palmer actually improved handwriting.
It is interesting in a essay about the history of handwriting that actual intelligence never comes up. Sure there is mention of social status, but when referring to high social status it is said they had poor handwriting. The argument now is whether handwriting will become obsolete and how that will affect our intelligence. It is my opinion that the discipline behind handwriting can be applied the same way to type. As young children we learn to read and write. I learned denealon, then cursive, I do not use either in my handwriting, I use a combination. I do not think it will hinder us as a people to focus less on penmanship. I do think time needs to be spent learning the shapes of letters. It would be impossible to read without the memory of letter shape. The things we read are most often not written but typed. If I wanted to read ancient scripture I would not look to yellowed parchment; I would look to Google. If each of us has unique handwriting then what is the point in learning one specific style of penmanship, we will never see it on paper the same way twice.
1. From the works of A.N. Palmer sited in-T.P. Thornton. Handwriting in America. (New York: Yale University Press. 1996
Baron takes us on a journey through the history of handwriting in this essay. Handwriting as a societal issue began with professionals. Doctors, Lawyers and Clergy were the most obvious group of people using handwriting in their trade, the next group was ladies, gentlemen and their secretaries. Baron points out that the third group was most influential in paving the way to our modern understanding of handwriting. Employees in commerce were a widely growing group. New jobs were being created, jobs in which writing was a needed skill. Copy writing was the first method in which these laborers learned the skill. These people were not writing as a means of getting a point across, they were simply copying the works of others. Eventually the practice of copy write became a useful tool in understanding the shapes they were writing. Handwriting then became a method in which to define class. Proper handwriting was not necessarily a sign of upper class status. People with better handwriting were considered lower class. Aristocrats in France in fact created a form of illegible handwriting to separate themselves. It was during this time that handwriting was used to differentiate not only classes but people themselves. Handwriting was used to find prospective spouses, criminals, and employees. Soon after handwriting began to be considered mechanical, this would change it into a science. People did not consider handwriting as a discipline until the mid to late 19th century when Platt Rogers Spencer began "coaching" the science of handwriting through commands and instruction. This was called Spencerian. Later in the century another American eschewed Spencer's method and focused on another style of writing. Norman Palmer focused less on the beauty of the handwriting and more on the eligibility, and usability of the penmanship saying that "no attempt is made to make the penmanship more beautiful than is consistent with utility."1 There is a question as to whether Spencer and Palmer actually improved handwriting.
It is interesting in a essay about the history of handwriting that actual intelligence never comes up. Sure there is mention of social status, but when referring to high social status it is said they had poor handwriting. The argument now is whether handwriting will become obsolete and how that will affect our intelligence. It is my opinion that the discipline behind handwriting can be applied the same way to type. As young children we learn to read and write. I learned denealon, then cursive, I do not use either in my handwriting, I use a combination. I do not think it will hinder us as a people to focus less on penmanship. I do think time needs to be spent learning the shapes of letters. It would be impossible to read without the memory of letter shape. The things we read are most often not written but typed. If I wanted to read ancient scripture I would not look to yellowed parchment; I would look to Google. If each of us has unique handwriting then what is the point in learning one specific style of penmanship, we will never see it on paper the same way twice.
1. From the works of A.N. Palmer sited in-T.P. Thornton. Handwriting in America. (New York: Yale University Press. 1996
The First Writing-Machines
Mark Twain. The First Writing-Machines
In this essay Twain discusses being one of the first people to own a typewriter. Twain tells the anecdote of being introduced to the machine for the first time. Twain was fascinated by the woman who could type 57 words per minute on the typewriter. He tells of the typist, she typed 57 words per minute and when that was not proof enough, she did it again, and again. The typist did her work on small slips of paper. When Twain got home with his newly purchased machine he was disappointed to learn that each slip of paper contained the same 57 words. Twain, having felt duped, began his own monotonous task of typing the same sentence over and over again. Twain gained a bit of respect for the woman when, after typing the same sentence so many times, he still only managed 12 words per minute. Twain hired a girl whom he dictated to, she typed faster than he. Twain claims to be, although with admittedly no proof, the first person to "APPLY THE TYPE-MACHINE TO LITERATURE". Written in capital letters of course because that is all the machine was capable of in the beginning. The adventures of Tom Sawyer is the book Twain recalls dictating to his typist. Soon after working on the book Twain decided to give the machine away. Giving the typewriter to a friend proved to be more difficult than he thought. Twain kept getting the machine back, finally getting rid of it by giving to a friend who then traded it in for something else.
Twain is adamant about expressing his unfamiliarity with the typewriter. Twain found it to be a burden. This of course makes sense considering how simple and difficult early typewriters must have been. I could not imagine typing on a typewriter now, especially one with no element of power. In the late 1800s a typewriters, although advanced for the time were very simple compared to what I am typing on now. Here is a picture of what a typewriter from that time looked like. I can't imagine what it weighed!
It is interesting, reading words of such a literary legend that seem so similar to our discussions today. The idea of a typewriter, a machine to do the work of a quill, seemed too difficult for many people, Twain could not give it away. People enjoyed writing, found the technology too much of a task. Today we think of the simple typewriter as obsolete, you could not pay me to write this much on one. Our attitudes toward technology are not new, but we should look to history to remind ourselves, someday we will be trying to imagine life without blogs!
In this essay Twain discusses being one of the first people to own a typewriter. Twain tells the anecdote of being introduced to the machine for the first time. Twain was fascinated by the woman who could type 57 words per minute on the typewriter. He tells of the typist, she typed 57 words per minute and when that was not proof enough, she did it again, and again. The typist did her work on small slips of paper. When Twain got home with his newly purchased machine he was disappointed to learn that each slip of paper contained the same 57 words. Twain, having felt duped, began his own monotonous task of typing the same sentence over and over again. Twain gained a bit of respect for the woman when, after typing the same sentence so many times, he still only managed 12 words per minute. Twain hired a girl whom he dictated to, she typed faster than he. Twain claims to be, although with admittedly no proof, the first person to "APPLY THE TYPE-MACHINE TO LITERATURE". Written in capital letters of course because that is all the machine was capable of in the beginning. The adventures of Tom Sawyer is the book Twain recalls dictating to his typist. Soon after working on the book Twain decided to give the machine away. Giving the typewriter to a friend proved to be more difficult than he thought. Twain kept getting the machine back, finally getting rid of it by giving to a friend who then traded it in for something else.
Twain is adamant about expressing his unfamiliarity with the typewriter. Twain found it to be a burden. This of course makes sense considering how simple and difficult early typewriters must have been. I could not imagine typing on a typewriter now, especially one with no element of power. In the late 1800s a typewriters, although advanced for the time were very simple compared to what I am typing on now. Here is a picture of what a typewriter from that time looked like. I can't imagine what it weighed!
It is interesting, reading words of such a literary legend that seem so similar to our discussions today. The idea of a typewriter, a machine to do the work of a quill, seemed too difficult for many people, Twain could not give it away. People enjoyed writing, found the technology too much of a task. Today we think of the simple typewriter as obsolete, you could not pay me to write this much on one. Our attitudes toward technology are not new, but we should look to history to remind ourselves, someday we will be trying to imagine life without blogs!
Monday, September 24, 2007
The Mind At Work
Mike Rose. The Mind At Work: Valuing the Intelligence of the American Worker
In this the introduction and beginning chapter of his book, Rose discusses the general opinions and assumptions of American society. It is widely believed by Americans that education equals intelligence and that can be seen by our positions in the work force. Many people consider hard labor to be a manually fulfilling job and by no means try and take that away from the worker; yet people do not generally associate that hard work with intelligence. Rose points out that many of the "blue collar" jobs in this country require a lot of mind work as well as the physical. Rose discusses his family of immigrants and what it was like to be raised by them. A waitress for instance may be looked down upon for her low position on the totem pole; yet Rose had the experience of watching his mother at work, noticing things he would never notice, remembering things he would not remember, all the while her arms stacked with plates. Intelligence in this country is based on social status as well as tests such as IQ. Rose points out that IQ tests generally ask many questions that can only be learned through formal education, thus tipping the scales in detriment to the uneducated. Rose quotes sociologist Steven Peter Vallas when talking about the way we classify work. Vallas says that although classifications such as "blue collar" and "white collar"and "mental" versus "manual" labor are sometimes useful, they fail to show the commonalities between the different forms of work. Rose states "these limiting categories reaffirm long standing biases about particular occupations and cause us to miss too much"
I am instantly reminded of a poem by Tom Robbins called "The genius waitress". As a self proclaimed intelligent woman who has done some hard labor in her day, I find the subject of Rose's book quite fascinating. Waitressing is my labor experience and let me tell you, it is a great way to learn a lot about human nature. I can almost guarantee I have more education and intelligence than more than half the people I have ever waited on. Customers in restaurants, for the most part, do not want their waitress to be intelligent, just perfect. While looking down at the waitress (or up I suppose with the intent of looking down) assuming she is the dumbest person on earth, or at least just as dumb as her coworkers; the customer asks questions the waitress is very used to, yet it is assumed they have no answer to. Of course if the waitress forgets to bring the bread or, god forbid the cook over cooks a steak, she is then reprimanded by the customer. All the while, the waitress is thinking the customer is a moron with absolutely no regard for human beings, certainly no respect. I actually had a group of women once who were discussing some world traveling. I commented that their lives sounded like a lot of fun, simply because it is not everyday you here people discussing trips to Africa and Asia in the same year. One woman looked at me with sympathy and said. "You will make it out of the country someday" she may have well said dear at the end of the sentence. Being the argumentative loud mouth I am, I informed her I have not only been out of the country numerous times, I actually lived in Europe for half a year. She of course assumed because of my position, I must not have ever had the opportunity to travel. Oh the feeble minded. Anyway, I have many very intelligent friends in "blue collar" positions, I think Rose's subject is one that should reach the masses.
In this the introduction and beginning chapter of his book, Rose discusses the general opinions and assumptions of American society. It is widely believed by Americans that education equals intelligence and that can be seen by our positions in the work force. Many people consider hard labor to be a manually fulfilling job and by no means try and take that away from the worker; yet people do not generally associate that hard work with intelligence. Rose points out that many of the "blue collar" jobs in this country require a lot of mind work as well as the physical. Rose discusses his family of immigrants and what it was like to be raised by them. A waitress for instance may be looked down upon for her low position on the totem pole; yet Rose had the experience of watching his mother at work, noticing things he would never notice, remembering things he would not remember, all the while her arms stacked with plates. Intelligence in this country is based on social status as well as tests such as IQ. Rose points out that IQ tests generally ask many questions that can only be learned through formal education, thus tipping the scales in detriment to the uneducated. Rose quotes sociologist Steven Peter Vallas when talking about the way we classify work. Vallas says that although classifications such as "blue collar" and "white collar"and "mental" versus "manual" labor are sometimes useful, they fail to show the commonalities between the different forms of work. Rose states "these limiting categories reaffirm long standing biases about particular occupations and cause us to miss too much"
I am instantly reminded of a poem by Tom Robbins called "The genius waitress". As a self proclaimed intelligent woman who has done some hard labor in her day, I find the subject of Rose's book quite fascinating. Waitressing is my labor experience and let me tell you, it is a great way to learn a lot about human nature. I can almost guarantee I have more education and intelligence than more than half the people I have ever waited on. Customers in restaurants, for the most part, do not want their waitress to be intelligent, just perfect. While looking down at the waitress (or up I suppose with the intent of looking down) assuming she is the dumbest person on earth, or at least just as dumb as her coworkers; the customer asks questions the waitress is very used to, yet it is assumed they have no answer to. Of course if the waitress forgets to bring the bread or, god forbid the cook over cooks a steak, she is then reprimanded by the customer. All the while, the waitress is thinking the customer is a moron with absolutely no regard for human beings, certainly no respect. I actually had a group of women once who were discussing some world traveling. I commented that their lives sounded like a lot of fun, simply because it is not everyday you here people discussing trips to Africa and Asia in the same year. One woman looked at me with sympathy and said. "You will make it out of the country someday" she may have well said dear at the end of the sentence. Being the argumentative loud mouth I am, I informed her I have not only been out of the country numerous times, I actually lived in Europe for half a year. She of course assumed because of my position, I must not have ever had the opportunity to travel. Oh the feeble minded. Anyway, I have many very intelligent friends in "blue collar" positions, I think Rose's subject is one that should reach the masses.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
In the Age of the Smart Machine
Zuboff, Shoshanda. In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. New York: Basic Books, 1988.
Zuboff discusses the idea of a workforce coping with technology. Zuboff focuses on a paper mill and its employees. The employees of the mill express their concern for the loss of their jobs. The fear of what may come is instilled in the employees. The mill was going through a complete modernization, implementing technology the employees had never seen. The employees feared not only for their jobs but for society as a whole. The swift introduction to this new technology made the employees feel as though the world as they knew it would rapidly become unrecognizable. Many of the workers expressed concern about becoming obsolete. The fear was that the training needed to change their ways would be more time consuming and expensive than the training of new, more technologically advanced people.
This idea that technology will take over our world, leaving no room for humans, is absurd. I realize it is hard to embrace the new. I realize too that in 1988 this stuff was still something out of, well, 1984. The truth is, technology has been around forever. Internet technology is brand new, computer technology is relatively new, but technology itself.... When the cotton gin was invented for example; people lost the job of picking cotton. I am sure many people felt displaced by this invention, but boy did it help advance this country. The industrial revolution made this country what it is today. We have been coping with and adapting to new technology for centuries. Charles Darwin gave us the idea of survival of the fittest. Evolution weeding out the weak, unnecessary elements of humanity, I don't think he meant Humans becoming obsolete, but maybe humans unwilling to adapt!
Zuboff discusses the idea of a workforce coping with technology. Zuboff focuses on a paper mill and its employees. The employees of the mill express their concern for the loss of their jobs. The fear of what may come is instilled in the employees. The mill was going through a complete modernization, implementing technology the employees had never seen. The employees feared not only for their jobs but for society as a whole. The swift introduction to this new technology made the employees feel as though the world as they knew it would rapidly become unrecognizable. Many of the workers expressed concern about becoming obsolete. The fear was that the training needed to change their ways would be more time consuming and expensive than the training of new, more technologically advanced people.
This idea that technology will take over our world, leaving no room for humans, is absurd. I realize it is hard to embrace the new. I realize too that in 1988 this stuff was still something out of, well, 1984. The truth is, technology has been around forever. Internet technology is brand new, computer technology is relatively new, but technology itself.... When the cotton gin was invented for example; people lost the job of picking cotton. I am sure many people felt displaced by this invention, but boy did it help advance this country. The industrial revolution made this country what it is today. We have been coping with and adapting to new technology for centuries. Charles Darwin gave us the idea of survival of the fittest. Evolution weeding out the weak, unnecessary elements of humanity, I don't think he meant Humans becoming obsolete, but maybe humans unwilling to adapt!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)