Americans hear about their worst problem every day.
It's barked at them by TV drill sergeants and blasted on the radio by people who claim to be doctors. It's made millionaires out of chemists and celebrities out of washed-up athletes. It's also a problem of our own creation.
The problem is: Americans are fat.
It's been common knowledge for years now that America has high rates of obesity and all of the fun health problems that go along with it.
Previous attempts to rectify the problem have focused almost exclusively on motivating the individual. These attempts have failed and we're getting fatter.
Perhaps it's time to look at things differently. We should think about some of the other factors that may be at the heart of the problem.
More than 66 percent of Americans are overweight, according to 2007 survey funded by the National Center for Health Statistics. Even more unsettling is the fact that the same survey shows that more than 32 percent of Americans are obese, which means their weight puts them at heightened risk for health problems.
Rates of obesity have increased dramatically in the past 15 years. The NCHS data show 56 percent of Americans are overweight. The percentage of overweight Americans increased to 65.2 percent in 2002, an increase of nearly 14 percent. What's even more startling, is that rates of obesity have more than doubled since 1994, with 32 percent of Americans listed as obese compared to 1994's 15.
These statistics have not been kept secret. They've have been force-fed down the throats of everyone with access to a TV, radio or the Internet.
So if everyone knows about the problem, why hasn't anything happened?
Nobody knows.
Well, some people claim to know, but their solution to the problem seems to be calling everyone lazy and then flexing their own rippled abs.
I disagree - it's not completely an issue of laziness.
I can't say for sure what the problem is, but I think we've taken a rather individualistic approach to this problem. We've taken an approach that may ignore issues grounded in our social structure.
Americans have tried, and spent millions of dollars in the process, to incorporate exercise into their daily routines. The government has spent millions pushing programs that focus on getting people out there and moving. We're all doing the Louisiana two-step, right?
Most of the previous efforts to slim down Americans focused on getting individual people to make healthy choices.
However, individual people often have more things going on in their everyday lives than just trying to lose weight - they have families, responsibilities and other stresses.
They also exist within a structure that may not be all that supportive of making healthy choices.
Recent academic research has brought light to food deserts, or areas where access to high-quality food is limited. These areas could be limited by location - meaning there are no local supermarkets, by finances - they can't afford to buy good food or they lack the cooking skills to prepare fresh food.
Food deserts are most common in areas that are highly rural or urban - areas that, according to the NCHS and US Census, just so happen to have the highest rates of obesity and poverty in the country.
The most common scenario for a food desert is an inner city ravaged by urban sprawl. As the wealthier population leaves the city, so do most of the large scale businesses, including supermarkets. This leaves poor residents with very few options for healthy food choices - especially if they lack transportation.
A mother can either buy a few apples for five bucks, or she can buy a lot more junk food for the same price. If you're concerned with feeding your family for the long-term, the junk food may look like a better option.
I'm sure she wants to keep her family healthy, but it may seem better to have them eat poorly than not enough.
That's not to say it's wrong to place some blame on the individual. Of course our individual actions play a part in our health, but those actions are always set in the context of our environment and that effect cannot be ignored.
It's easy to call people lazy or weak when they are unable to lose weight and become healthier. However, not everyone goes through life with the same access to skills and resources.
Until we begin to address obesity at the structural level we are not going to see changes. We're not going to get healthier, and we may be faced with a generation of Americans that were condemned to sickness and disease by their lack of resources before they realized it.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Educators cannot ignore effects of technology
Technology will revolutionize the education system, but not in the way most people think.
Educational technology has advanced by leaps and bounds within the past 10 years. Nearly every classroom here at the University has a computer that can connect to the Internet, show videos and DVDs and play PowerPoint presentations. All of these are technological advancements that our parents and early educators would have never dreamed possible. But for all the advancement they represent, they are not the advancements that will truly alter the education of future generations.
On the contrary, it's not the technologies themselves that will change education, but the after effects of these technologies will shape the education of our children.
We live in a time of great technological advancement, but the true benefit of technology is not reaped by the first generation to experience it. It's the subsequent generations that truly explore, exploit and refine technology.
This isn't a knock on the intelligence of older generations. It isn't an issue of capacity, but one of exposure.
The easiest example of the diffusion of technology through generations is the Internet.
The early adopters of the Internet were a few tech-savvy members of Generation X. This generation, born between 1965 and 1982, helped nurture the Internet into its current state. In those days the Internet was more of a person-to-person method of communicating - similar to the message boards we have today. However, because of the advanced knowledge required to access the Internet, only a small set of Gen X have been exposed to it in significant amounts.
While Gen X is credited with furthering the Internet, it is not the generation most entrenched in it.
The Millennial Generation, unlike its predecessor, came of age when the Internet was just beginning to take off and is most heavily associated with its use.
This group, born between 1982 and 1997, were exposed to the Internet on a much larger scale than the general population of Gen X. The millennial generation has extensive experience with the Internet, but it was still introduced after its early socialization - the Internet merely augmented an existing world-view instead of being the focal point.
The Millennial Generation is the group that has popularized sites like Facebook.com and Myspace.com - they are social Internet users.
The generation after the Millennials, which some have taken to calling Generation Z, was born with the Internet. Many of those young people were at keyboards before they could ride bikes and are quite familiar with the Internet and its possibilities.
At the heart of the Internet is information, specifically instant information. There are few questions that cannot be answered, or at the very least enlightened, by a quick Internet search.
For those socialized and educated through the old way of learning, such as using a card catalogue in a library, this new method of information seeking exists in contrast to the old way, and makes it better.
For the new generation coming up, there is no old way. The technology that has brought amazing advancements to Gen X and the Millennials will be the status-quo for Gen Z- they won't know anything else.
Rapid access to information will become, or already is, the norm. I imagine there are hundreds of students at the University right now that have no idea what a library card catalogue actually looks like, much less how it works.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but that generation will need new skills to deal with this information.
This new generation shouldn't change for us - we should better ourselves and up the ante. Future educators will need to revolutionize the way they dole out and teach students to analyze information.
It's already happening in other parts of society.
In a 2008 study, The Context-Based Research Group found that young people responded better to information that was processed in quick, successive waves. Each wave increasing the level of detail, until a full picture was established. Using that information, several Associated Press branches tailored their style and found a great deal of success.
The writing is on the wall. While it may seem blasphemous to those that still remember the old ways, those ways may need to go the way of the Edsel and Windows ME.
Of course not all areas of education will change completely. Medical doctors will still need to know how to troubleshoot a patient's problems, and scholars will still have to be familiar with the body of work in their area. But the steps leading to those levels of education cannot remain as they are.
Without revolution or innovation we may find ourselves a shallow, under-educated society that has access to all the world's information, but without the capability to use it.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Educational technology has advanced by leaps and bounds within the past 10 years. Nearly every classroom here at the University has a computer that can connect to the Internet, show videos and DVDs and play PowerPoint presentations. All of these are technological advancements that our parents and early educators would have never dreamed possible. But for all the advancement they represent, they are not the advancements that will truly alter the education of future generations.
On the contrary, it's not the technologies themselves that will change education, but the after effects of these technologies will shape the education of our children.
We live in a time of great technological advancement, but the true benefit of technology is not reaped by the first generation to experience it. It's the subsequent generations that truly explore, exploit and refine technology.
This isn't a knock on the intelligence of older generations. It isn't an issue of capacity, but one of exposure.
The easiest example of the diffusion of technology through generations is the Internet.
The early adopters of the Internet were a few tech-savvy members of Generation X. This generation, born between 1965 and 1982, helped nurture the Internet into its current state. In those days the Internet was more of a person-to-person method of communicating - similar to the message boards we have today. However, because of the advanced knowledge required to access the Internet, only a small set of Gen X have been exposed to it in significant amounts.
While Gen X is credited with furthering the Internet, it is not the generation most entrenched in it.
The Millennial Generation, unlike its predecessor, came of age when the Internet was just beginning to take off and is most heavily associated with its use.
This group, born between 1982 and 1997, were exposed to the Internet on a much larger scale than the general population of Gen X. The millennial generation has extensive experience with the Internet, but it was still introduced after its early socialization - the Internet merely augmented an existing world-view instead of being the focal point.
The Millennial Generation is the group that has popularized sites like Facebook.com and Myspace.com - they are social Internet users.
The generation after the Millennials, which some have taken to calling Generation Z, was born with the Internet. Many of those young people were at keyboards before they could ride bikes and are quite familiar with the Internet and its possibilities.
At the heart of the Internet is information, specifically instant information. There are few questions that cannot be answered, or at the very least enlightened, by a quick Internet search.
For those socialized and educated through the old way of learning, such as using a card catalogue in a library, this new method of information seeking exists in contrast to the old way, and makes it better.
For the new generation coming up, there is no old way. The technology that has brought amazing advancements to Gen X and the Millennials will be the status-quo for Gen Z- they won't know anything else.
Rapid access to information will become, or already is, the norm. I imagine there are hundreds of students at the University right now that have no idea what a library card catalogue actually looks like, much less how it works.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but that generation will need new skills to deal with this information.
This new generation shouldn't change for us - we should better ourselves and up the ante. Future educators will need to revolutionize the way they dole out and teach students to analyze information.
It's already happening in other parts of society.
In a 2008 study, The Context-Based Research Group found that young people responded better to information that was processed in quick, successive waves. Each wave increasing the level of detail, until a full picture was established. Using that information, several Associated Press branches tailored their style and found a great deal of success.
The writing is on the wall. While it may seem blasphemous to those that still remember the old ways, those ways may need to go the way of the Edsel and Windows ME.
Of course not all areas of education will change completely. Medical doctors will still need to know how to troubleshoot a patient's problems, and scholars will still have to be familiar with the body of work in their area. But the steps leading to those levels of education cannot remain as they are.
Without revolution or innovation we may find ourselves a shallow, under-educated society that has access to all the world's information, but without the capability to use it.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Friday, May 2, 2008
Empathetic understanding opens social world
On April 2, 2008, the Housing Authority of East Baton Rouge Parish indefinitely closed the waiting list on all public housing. To most University students, that doesn't mean anything.
Why should it? University students are currently freaking out about final exams, projects, papers and - for the lucky few - graduation. All these things can distract us from the world around us. Besides, they're not University students - what does it matter?
The truth is, it does matter, and in reality, we are all tied together. Every person you see is a part of the same system - our social world - and its exploration is key to our development both as people and as a civilization.
When one takes into account all of the things that go on in our lives, it's easy to think of someone else's plight as distant and remain detached from another's problems.
Take the recent closing of the Housing Authority waiting list. East Baton Rouge Parish Officials have closed the list, meaning they are no longer accepting applications for public housing, and there are already too many people on the waiting list.
They offer no estimated date as to when the waiting list will be reopened.
On the University's campus, it's easy to ignore something like that. The University can create a bubble that, outside of national news coverage via the Internet and page two of The Daily Reveille, can be difficult to see past.
Odds are that most students didn't even know the waiting list was closed and may not even know anything about the process of finding public housing.
But for a portion of the Baton Rouge population, the closing of this waiting list is a big deal and has dire consequences on not just their future, but on their family's future as well.
That still seems distant to some people, but in reality, there are public housing units located within a couple of miles of the University.
Some of the people we see on our drives to and from campus are likely some of the same people affected by the closing of that list, and some students may even know people directly affected by this situation.
Regardless of how far away or irrelevant some things may seem, we are all a part of the social world - even though it's often easy to ignore people outside of those we are directly in contact with.
On the odd occasions we do help out others, it's abstract and often removed from the people themselves.
University students recently slept in boxes to raise money for the Homeless Awareness Organization of Louisiana. At the event, participants played Frisbee golf and had a good time. It was a noble thought, and the money went to a good cause. But it's still detached from where the problem actually lies.
We apparently only think about the plights of others when they are separate and abstract.
Social scientists often use the term "verstehen" when thinking about the lives of the people they study. In German, verstehen is a verb meaning "to understand."
In the social sciences, it means "an empathetic understanding" - to attempt to understand people with respect to their situations and their circumstances.
Empathetic understanding is the least we can offer both the people we interact with and the ones we don't.
Regardless of what we go through, it's important we take time to explore our social world - to think about what happens around us and the effects those actions can have in our lives and the lives of those around us.
I can't urge everyone to be active in helping others. I don't believe that everyone has the heart or the will to reach out to everyone they meet - it's time consuming and nearly impossible.
But I can urge everyone to stop for a bit and think about the social world that exists around us.
Take a minute after a final exam, five minutes during an intense paper-writing session or maybe 10 minutes during the long-awaited summer vacation to just look at the people around us and at least think about what they must be going through.
It won't put food on anybody's plate or give them a place to sleep, but if we all start thinking about our social world empathetically, we may be able to do something before it's too late.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Why should it? University students are currently freaking out about final exams, projects, papers and - for the lucky few - graduation. All these things can distract us from the world around us. Besides, they're not University students - what does it matter?
The truth is, it does matter, and in reality, we are all tied together. Every person you see is a part of the same system - our social world - and its exploration is key to our development both as people and as a civilization.
When one takes into account all of the things that go on in our lives, it's easy to think of someone else's plight as distant and remain detached from another's problems.
Take the recent closing of the Housing Authority waiting list. East Baton Rouge Parish Officials have closed the list, meaning they are no longer accepting applications for public housing, and there are already too many people on the waiting list.
They offer no estimated date as to when the waiting list will be reopened.
On the University's campus, it's easy to ignore something like that. The University can create a bubble that, outside of national news coverage via the Internet and page two of The Daily Reveille, can be difficult to see past.
Odds are that most students didn't even know the waiting list was closed and may not even know anything about the process of finding public housing.
But for a portion of the Baton Rouge population, the closing of this waiting list is a big deal and has dire consequences on not just their future, but on their family's future as well.
That still seems distant to some people, but in reality, there are public housing units located within a couple of miles of the University.
Some of the people we see on our drives to and from campus are likely some of the same people affected by the closing of that list, and some students may even know people directly affected by this situation.
Regardless of how far away or irrelevant some things may seem, we are all a part of the social world - even though it's often easy to ignore people outside of those we are directly in contact with.
On the odd occasions we do help out others, it's abstract and often removed from the people themselves.
University students recently slept in boxes to raise money for the Homeless Awareness Organization of Louisiana. At the event, participants played Frisbee golf and had a good time. It was a noble thought, and the money went to a good cause. But it's still detached from where the problem actually lies.
We apparently only think about the plights of others when they are separate and abstract.
Social scientists often use the term "verstehen" when thinking about the lives of the people they study. In German, verstehen is a verb meaning "to understand."
In the social sciences, it means "an empathetic understanding" - to attempt to understand people with respect to their situations and their circumstances.
Empathetic understanding is the least we can offer both the people we interact with and the ones we don't.
Regardless of what we go through, it's important we take time to explore our social world - to think about what happens around us and the effects those actions can have in our lives and the lives of those around us.
I can't urge everyone to be active in helping others. I don't believe that everyone has the heart or the will to reach out to everyone they meet - it's time consuming and nearly impossible.
But I can urge everyone to stop for a bit and think about the social world that exists around us.
Take a minute after a final exam, five minutes during an intense paper-writing session or maybe 10 minutes during the long-awaited summer vacation to just look at the people around us and at least think about what they must be going through.
It won't put food on anybody's plate or give them a place to sleep, but if we all start thinking about our social world empathetically, we may be able to do something before it's too late.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Friday, April 25, 2008
Social class at heart of pro wrestling illegitimacy
Everyone I know says professional wrestling isn't a sport because it's fake. I disagree - I think it's a class issue.
When my friends tell me wrestling is fake, I simply bring up the Olympic sport ice dancing.
Both pro wrestling and ice dancing have strong performance elements, involve acts of athletic skill and, at some points, require you to pitch your partner - or "opponent" in pro wrestling - across the room.
Sure, the outcomes are scripted, but the biggest criticism launched at pro wrestling - the ignorant fans, the crass subject matter - are all dependent on class and illustrate our cultural inability to openly discuss it.
We all have some generic conception of what class is - but if pushed, we're often hard-pressed to come up with an idea that doesn't rely on economic terms. Class is one of those social concepts everyone knows about but few people can put into words.
Class has a strong cultural meaning that is often an extension of its economic meaning. Pro wrestling is considered a low-class event and non-legitimate sport. But it bears a strong resemblance to the serious Olympic sport of ice dancing.
Ice dancing is kind of like the bastard cousin of figure skating and ribbon dancing - it's done on ice, there aren't any big jumps - the choreography and performance are the most important aspects.
The corollary to professional wrestling is easy to see. Pro wrestling is the bastard cousin of amateur wrestling and performance art wherein jacked-up men and women in tiny, often spangled pants athletically play-fight for the entertainment of millions.
The main theoretical difference between pro wrestling and ice dancing is the presence of a regulatory body and an official judging committee that legitimizes ice dancing.
It's a sport because someone judges it and decides there is a legitimate winner. The same thing happens in pro wrestling, it's just that the judge picks the winner before and rewards the best performer with future success afterward.
Professional wrestling has never had a sanctioned regulatory body. Since its earliest days in the traveling carnivals of Europe, pro wrestling has been largely self-regulated. It was briefly managed by local boxing commissions, but that was more a joke than anything else because many boxing commissions were already aware of the dubious nature of the pro wrestling.
The common roots in performance make the comparison between ice dancing and pro wrestling legitimate. It's impossible to compare pro wrestling to competitive sports like baseball or football. In those sports, two teams compete for an undetermined, unscripted outcome, and a winner is decided by the rules of the game, not by a committee of judges.
Ice dancing is a different story.
In ice dancing, judges grade the skaters on the performance of movements and skills inclusive to their sport. Ice dancing involves a very specific skill set of memorized and repeated movements that are choreographed - quite similar to pro wrestling, where movements are choreographed, but there is no judging body outside of a promoter and the fans.
The lack of a judging body is somewhat irrelevant in this argument, because it's wrestling's low-class image that truly keeps it from achieving legitimate status.
If pro wrestling instituted a judging system and legitimacy was confirmed, I imagine it would be placed somewhere above cock fighting but slightly below NASCAR in the strata of respected sports.
Academic research supports this, and in a 2002 Sage publication, Thomas C. Wilson found a paradoxical relationship between social class and sports involvement. People in higher economic and cultural classes are more frequently involved in sports in general, according to Wilson.
That relationship changes when the type of sport is considered. People in higher cultural classes are less likely to be involved in lower-class sports.
Class is more than how much money one makes. It can reach as far as the type of sports we like and why we like them or in the case of pro wrestling, why we are embarrassed by them.
It's easy to argue against the vulgar and violent content of pro wrestling. But, many of the themes featured in the average wrestling broadcast are no more high class than those featured on an episode of MTV's "The Real World" or VH1's "Rock of Love." Yet people are not embarrassed to discuss those shows in public.
Pro wrestling receives little respect because it carries the heavy social stigma of lower-class status, which comes partially from its fans, who are often portrayed as ignorant and low class by the media and most public intellectuals. Being called a "fake sport" doesn't help either.
In the end, my comparison of ice dancing and pro wrestling is apt but mainly demonstrates how pervasive class assessments are in the way we think.
I imagine few people know of ice dancing, and in many circles, it's mere mention would certainly raise a few eyebrows, but that in itself demonstrates the power of cultural class.
Consciousness of class may be one of the last dirty words in America, and it's sad that it can be seen in something as simple as the division between sports and entertainment.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
When my friends tell me wrestling is fake, I simply bring up the Olympic sport ice dancing.
Both pro wrestling and ice dancing have strong performance elements, involve acts of athletic skill and, at some points, require you to pitch your partner - or "opponent" in pro wrestling - across the room.
Sure, the outcomes are scripted, but the biggest criticism launched at pro wrestling - the ignorant fans, the crass subject matter - are all dependent on class and illustrate our cultural inability to openly discuss it.
We all have some generic conception of what class is - but if pushed, we're often hard-pressed to come up with an idea that doesn't rely on economic terms. Class is one of those social concepts everyone knows about but few people can put into words.
Class has a strong cultural meaning that is often an extension of its economic meaning. Pro wrestling is considered a low-class event and non-legitimate sport. But it bears a strong resemblance to the serious Olympic sport of ice dancing.
Ice dancing is kind of like the bastard cousin of figure skating and ribbon dancing - it's done on ice, there aren't any big jumps - the choreography and performance are the most important aspects.
The corollary to professional wrestling is easy to see. Pro wrestling is the bastard cousin of amateur wrestling and performance art wherein jacked-up men and women in tiny, often spangled pants athletically play-fight for the entertainment of millions.
The main theoretical difference between pro wrestling and ice dancing is the presence of a regulatory body and an official judging committee that legitimizes ice dancing.
It's a sport because someone judges it and decides there is a legitimate winner. The same thing happens in pro wrestling, it's just that the judge picks the winner before and rewards the best performer with future success afterward.
Professional wrestling has never had a sanctioned regulatory body. Since its earliest days in the traveling carnivals of Europe, pro wrestling has been largely self-regulated. It was briefly managed by local boxing commissions, but that was more a joke than anything else because many boxing commissions were already aware of the dubious nature of the pro wrestling.
The common roots in performance make the comparison between ice dancing and pro wrestling legitimate. It's impossible to compare pro wrestling to competitive sports like baseball or football. In those sports, two teams compete for an undetermined, unscripted outcome, and a winner is decided by the rules of the game, not by a committee of judges.
Ice dancing is a different story.
In ice dancing, judges grade the skaters on the performance of movements and skills inclusive to their sport. Ice dancing involves a very specific skill set of memorized and repeated movements that are choreographed - quite similar to pro wrestling, where movements are choreographed, but there is no judging body outside of a promoter and the fans.
The lack of a judging body is somewhat irrelevant in this argument, because it's wrestling's low-class image that truly keeps it from achieving legitimate status.
If pro wrestling instituted a judging system and legitimacy was confirmed, I imagine it would be placed somewhere above cock fighting but slightly below NASCAR in the strata of respected sports.
Academic research supports this, and in a 2002 Sage publication, Thomas C. Wilson found a paradoxical relationship between social class and sports involvement. People in higher economic and cultural classes are more frequently involved in sports in general, according to Wilson.
That relationship changes when the type of sport is considered. People in higher cultural classes are less likely to be involved in lower-class sports.
Class is more than how much money one makes. It can reach as far as the type of sports we like and why we like them or in the case of pro wrestling, why we are embarrassed by them.
It's easy to argue against the vulgar and violent content of pro wrestling. But, many of the themes featured in the average wrestling broadcast are no more high class than those featured on an episode of MTV's "The Real World" or VH1's "Rock of Love." Yet people are not embarrassed to discuss those shows in public.
Pro wrestling receives little respect because it carries the heavy social stigma of lower-class status, which comes partially from its fans, who are often portrayed as ignorant and low class by the media and most public intellectuals. Being called a "fake sport" doesn't help either.
In the end, my comparison of ice dancing and pro wrestling is apt but mainly demonstrates how pervasive class assessments are in the way we think.
I imagine few people know of ice dancing, and in many circles, it's mere mention would certainly raise a few eyebrows, but that in itself demonstrates the power of cultural class.
Consciousness of class may be one of the last dirty words in America, and it's sad that it can be seen in something as simple as the division between sports and entertainment.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Friday, April 18, 2008
Google Earth blurs line between information and politics
I really like Google.
What's not to like? Every product it puts on the market is wonderful.
First, it took the world by storm with its search engine, then its e-mail client. And now, it's working its way into the world of word-processing software and office program suites.
It looks like Google can do no wrong - or can it?
Media outlets and bloggers have recently criticized Google for a new feature it has added to its Google Earth program.
Google Earth now displays images and detailed information about the Darfur crisis on maps of the area. The images may bring even more media attention to the situation in Darfur, but they also raise serious questions about the implications of further politicization of media.
On April 15, Google Earth launched its "Crisis in Darfur" initiative. The program, a joint venture between Google and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, allows users to view the effects of genocide in Darfur through pictures of the destruction and detailed statistics.
Google Earth was originally released under the name "Earth Viewer" in 2004. It was developed by Keyhole Inc., who sold its program to Google later that year. The program was re-released as Google Earth in 2005.
The software is a fairly complex product that produces a very simple result. Using detailed satellite pictures stretched over a 3D globe, Google Earth allows users to view specific addresses and locations with a reasonable degree of detail and accuracy.
The resolution on the images is not sufficient to make out fine details but is good enough for users to identify their house on a map.
Early critics of Google Earth were concerned it would be used to invade the privacy of others. More specifically, countries around the world were upset that a private American company was able to view top-secret areas and provide free pictures to the whole world.
This ruffled a few feathers and - shortly after the program's release - numerous dignitaries and national leaders demanded Google remove the pictures of the top-secret locations from their site.
Google caved to their criticisms and agreed to blur out images of certain locations, thus protecting important locations such as Pakistani military sites and the royal stables in Norway.
Now Google Earth is getting itself into a different situation - with entirely different consequences.
Google hopes the addition of the Darfur initiative feature to Google Earth will help draw attention to the situation and inform more people of the atrocities that have happened there.
The Darfur initiative shows Google has its heart in a great place, and it will undoubtedly bring much-needed attention to the area. But an unintended consequence of its inclusion could be a further blurring of the line between information and politics.
Some see Google's support of the relief effort in Darfur as political statement.
It's no secret the line between information and politics has always been somewhat blurry. In the early days of the U.S., newspapers played an important role in the election process. Today, accusations of political partisanship are hurled towards specific television news outlets on a daily basis.
So why is Google's political statement so different?
The simple answer is exposure.
For many people, Google isn't just a brand of search engine in the same way that Fox News and CNN are brands of news outlets - to many, Google is the only search engine and outlet.
There are other search engines, but the name "Google" has become synonymous with search engines in general and isn't just a part of the online market - Google is the online market.
It's exactly the same as the way many Southerners refer to any soft drink as "Coke," how all brands of facial tissue paper can be called "Kleenex," or how some people still refer to playing any video game as playing Nintendo.
When a product transitions from a mere brand name to an inclusive catch-all for its service, people may forget it is a large company and begin to view it more as an institution.
Implicit in the assumption of institutional status is the assumption of political neutrality - which may be dangerous in the case of Google.
Google.com isn't a direct source of information - it's just a search engine.
However, Google Earth is a source of information. Its use to champion a political cause may be the first step toward further politicization of information - which is especially dangerous because Google's Internet omnipresence makes this shift nearly invisible.
Because so many people view Google as their window to new information and facts, many may confuse Google's stance on future political issues with official information.
Admittedly, my argument here is a slippery slope, and I doubt anyone will outwardly criticize Google supporting relief efforts in Darfur - the situation is terrible and everyone knows genocide is an atrocity.
But Google Earth's Darfur initiative does set a precedent for information-sharing bodies, in this case seen as unbiased, championing political causes - one that could come back to haunt us in the future.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
What's not to like? Every product it puts on the market is wonderful.
First, it took the world by storm with its search engine, then its e-mail client. And now, it's working its way into the world of word-processing software and office program suites.
It looks like Google can do no wrong - or can it?
Media outlets and bloggers have recently criticized Google for a new feature it has added to its Google Earth program.
Google Earth now displays images and detailed information about the Darfur crisis on maps of the area. The images may bring even more media attention to the situation in Darfur, but they also raise serious questions about the implications of further politicization of media.
On April 15, Google Earth launched its "Crisis in Darfur" initiative. The program, a joint venture between Google and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, allows users to view the effects of genocide in Darfur through pictures of the destruction and detailed statistics.
Google Earth was originally released under the name "Earth Viewer" in 2004. It was developed by Keyhole Inc., who sold its program to Google later that year. The program was re-released as Google Earth in 2005.
The software is a fairly complex product that produces a very simple result. Using detailed satellite pictures stretched over a 3D globe, Google Earth allows users to view specific addresses and locations with a reasonable degree of detail and accuracy.
The resolution on the images is not sufficient to make out fine details but is good enough for users to identify their house on a map.
Early critics of Google Earth were concerned it would be used to invade the privacy of others. More specifically, countries around the world were upset that a private American company was able to view top-secret areas and provide free pictures to the whole world.
This ruffled a few feathers and - shortly after the program's release - numerous dignitaries and national leaders demanded Google remove the pictures of the top-secret locations from their site.
Google caved to their criticisms and agreed to blur out images of certain locations, thus protecting important locations such as Pakistani military sites and the royal stables in Norway.
Now Google Earth is getting itself into a different situation - with entirely different consequences.
Google hopes the addition of the Darfur initiative feature to Google Earth will help draw attention to the situation and inform more people of the atrocities that have happened there.
The Darfur initiative shows Google has its heart in a great place, and it will undoubtedly bring much-needed attention to the area. But an unintended consequence of its inclusion could be a further blurring of the line between information and politics.
Some see Google's support of the relief effort in Darfur as political statement.
It's no secret the line between information and politics has always been somewhat blurry. In the early days of the U.S., newspapers played an important role in the election process. Today, accusations of political partisanship are hurled towards specific television news outlets on a daily basis.
So why is Google's political statement so different?
The simple answer is exposure.
For many people, Google isn't just a brand of search engine in the same way that Fox News and CNN are brands of news outlets - to many, Google is the only search engine and outlet.
There are other search engines, but the name "Google" has become synonymous with search engines in general and isn't just a part of the online market - Google is the online market.
It's exactly the same as the way many Southerners refer to any soft drink as "Coke," how all brands of facial tissue paper can be called "Kleenex," or how some people still refer to playing any video game as playing Nintendo.
When a product transitions from a mere brand name to an inclusive catch-all for its service, people may forget it is a large company and begin to view it more as an institution.
Implicit in the assumption of institutional status is the assumption of political neutrality - which may be dangerous in the case of Google.
Google.com isn't a direct source of information - it's just a search engine.
However, Google Earth is a source of information. Its use to champion a political cause may be the first step toward further politicization of information - which is especially dangerous because Google's Internet omnipresence makes this shift nearly invisible.
Because so many people view Google as their window to new information and facts, many may confuse Google's stance on future political issues with official information.
Admittedly, my argument here is a slippery slope, and I doubt anyone will outwardly criticize Google supporting relief efforts in Darfur - the situation is terrible and everyone knows genocide is an atrocity.
But Google Earth's Darfur initiative does set a precedent for information-sharing bodies, in this case seen as unbiased, championing political causes - one that could come back to haunt us in the future.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Friday, April 11, 2008
'Banking system of education' outdated, obsolete
As an undergraduate student, I hated scantron exams. In hindsight, I had every right to - scantrons represent a detached system of education that may not give students the best possible education.
Recent technological innovations have given unprecedented access to information, but students are still educated in nearly the exact same manner as their parents - memorization and repetition.
This method - labeled the "banking system of education" by educational theorist Paulo Freire - has ruled our educational system since its inception, but challenges from new educational mediums and the failure of our system to prepare its students for the real world are leading many to question our educational system as a whole.
These questions may be unanswerable, given the structure and nature of the system - a system that seems to value numbers graduated more than the education and viability of its students.
Freire's concept of the banking system of education is fairly simple. As expressed in his 1970 work "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," the banking system treats students as an empty bank account. As empty accounts - or blank slates - students are instructed to open their minds and allow educators to fill them with relevant data and information.
The end result is passive learning - education without agency.
Freire rejects the banking approach to education. In his view, the banking system creates oppression of both the student and the instructor, inadequately preparing students to handle the outside world.
In place of the banking system, Freire advocates an education system that ignores the traditional student-teacher relationship and creates a reciprocal relationship between the two - the student also teaches, and the teacher also learns.
Freire believes in the idea of active education.
In our fast-paced world, this feels like a romantic notion calling back to the days of wise philosophers and their apprentices - a world that doesn't exist today.
One look at the structure of the University makes it clear the aforementioned romantic notion of a reciprocal student-teacher relationship may be long forgotten.
In my mind, the Cox Auditorium is a monument to the banking system of education and an outright rejection of active education.
Each morning, students cram themselves into a modern structure designed to pump their brains with as much knowledge as possible, while at the same time keeping interaction with their instructor as limited as possible.
Slideshow presentations blasted onto giant screens illuminate sleepy faces. The flashing bullet points drill home the important points of a lecture, telling students what they should write down and pay attention to.
In fact, students don't even have to raise their hands to give feedback - they have clickers.
I see students sitting in seats that have been manufactured to ensure maximum capacity, their eyes glazed as another bullet point slides across the screen and then leeches its way onto their spiral notebook. The students clasp a multi-buttoned clicker with their free hand, ready to pick the pre-fabricated answer to a multiple choice question.
If that's not the banking system of education, I don't know what is.
With all that said, I don't blame the instructors one bit. I find it hard to believe any professor or instructor at the University came into their job with the intention of turning students into zombies armed with remote controls.
Most graduate programs the instructors completed are designed as the antithesis of that mentality - graduate students often work with their professors. Unless grad school was a traumatic experience, the benefits of active education are remarkably clear.
Reliance on the banking system of education is a product of the administration and the nature of the American higher-educational system. Public universities are encouraged to graduate as many students as they can.
An educated populace is a successful one - or so it seems.
This places the administration in a tough position. They need state funding but must balance it with the educational needs of their students. Sadly, undergraduate students seem to lose out most often and - outside of a complete reboot of our education system - it seems unlikely active education will ever dominate our universities and schools.
There is hope though, and it resides in something the administration can't do anything about: student responsibility.
Students enter the University for a variety of reasons: some see it as a path to a future job, some as personal betterment and some see it as just something to do. Whatever the reason, students should take responsibility for their education.
At any University, the classroom experience is unavoidable and imminently valuable. Its nature has changed little in the past 50 years and is unlikely to undergo a revolution anytime soon. The difference-maker in our educational experience will be the work we students put into the subject matter - outside of our large classrooms.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Recent technological innovations have given unprecedented access to information, but students are still educated in nearly the exact same manner as their parents - memorization and repetition.
This method - labeled the "banking system of education" by educational theorist Paulo Freire - has ruled our educational system since its inception, but challenges from new educational mediums and the failure of our system to prepare its students for the real world are leading many to question our educational system as a whole.
These questions may be unanswerable, given the structure and nature of the system - a system that seems to value numbers graduated more than the education and viability of its students.
Freire's concept of the banking system of education is fairly simple. As expressed in his 1970 work "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," the banking system treats students as an empty bank account. As empty accounts - or blank slates - students are instructed to open their minds and allow educators to fill them with relevant data and information.
The end result is passive learning - education without agency.
Freire rejects the banking approach to education. In his view, the banking system creates oppression of both the student and the instructor, inadequately preparing students to handle the outside world.
In place of the banking system, Freire advocates an education system that ignores the traditional student-teacher relationship and creates a reciprocal relationship between the two - the student also teaches, and the teacher also learns.
Freire believes in the idea of active education.
In our fast-paced world, this feels like a romantic notion calling back to the days of wise philosophers and their apprentices - a world that doesn't exist today.
One look at the structure of the University makes it clear the aforementioned romantic notion of a reciprocal student-teacher relationship may be long forgotten.
In my mind, the Cox Auditorium is a monument to the banking system of education and an outright rejection of active education.
Each morning, students cram themselves into a modern structure designed to pump their brains with as much knowledge as possible, while at the same time keeping interaction with their instructor as limited as possible.
Slideshow presentations blasted onto giant screens illuminate sleepy faces. The flashing bullet points drill home the important points of a lecture, telling students what they should write down and pay attention to.
In fact, students don't even have to raise their hands to give feedback - they have clickers.
I see students sitting in seats that have been manufactured to ensure maximum capacity, their eyes glazed as another bullet point slides across the screen and then leeches its way onto their spiral notebook. The students clasp a multi-buttoned clicker with their free hand, ready to pick the pre-fabricated answer to a multiple choice question.
If that's not the banking system of education, I don't know what is.
With all that said, I don't blame the instructors one bit. I find it hard to believe any professor or instructor at the University came into their job with the intention of turning students into zombies armed with remote controls.
Most graduate programs the instructors completed are designed as the antithesis of that mentality - graduate students often work with their professors. Unless grad school was a traumatic experience, the benefits of active education are remarkably clear.
Reliance on the banking system of education is a product of the administration and the nature of the American higher-educational system. Public universities are encouraged to graduate as many students as they can.
An educated populace is a successful one - or so it seems.
This places the administration in a tough position. They need state funding but must balance it with the educational needs of their students. Sadly, undergraduate students seem to lose out most often and - outside of a complete reboot of our education system - it seems unlikely active education will ever dominate our universities and schools.
There is hope though, and it resides in something the administration can't do anything about: student responsibility.
Students enter the University for a variety of reasons: some see it as a path to a future job, some as personal betterment and some see it as just something to do. Whatever the reason, students should take responsibility for their education.
At any University, the classroom experience is unavoidable and imminently valuable. Its nature has changed little in the past 50 years and is unlikely to undergo a revolution anytime soon. The difference-maker in our educational experience will be the work we students put into the subject matter - outside of our large classrooms.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Friday, April 4, 2008
New sins for Roman Catholics challenge social issues
The entire world was rocked off its axis three weeks ago when the Catholic Church announced a list of seven new sins.
OK, so maybe the world wasn't actually moved from the invisible line that keeps it upright, and maybe most University students didn't even blink at the announcement.
But the sins themselves have some rather interesting social repercussions and could signal a change in the direction of the Catholic Church and religion in the United States in general.
The new sins officially rolled out March 10 in the Vatican's official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, by Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, who is the head of the bureau in charge of sin and penance.
In the article, Girotti stated what he thought were the new sins for modern Catholics. Girotti started by expanding the definition of what Catholics considered sin and added in several new ones.
"You offend God not only by stealing, taking the Lord's name in vain or coveting your neighbor's wife but also by wrecking the environment, carrying out morally debatable experiments that manipulate DNA or harm embryos," Girotti said.
The sins, meant to accompany the original seven deadly sins issued in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory the Great, include bioethical violations, morally dubious experiments, drug abuse, pollution and social issues such as the expansion of the wealth gap and the creation of poverty.
Catholics stratify their sins between mortal and venial sins. Venial sins are minor sins, which on their own, do not condemn one's soul to eternal damnation. Mortal sins, including the seven newly-minted sins, are serious business and can keep one from entering heaven without proper repentance.
The first few sins are just official codification of previously held beliefs.
For example, abortion and the use of birth control - forbidden in the Humanae Vitae but never officially made a sin - can be easily filed under "Bioethical Violations" and stem cell research or human cloning would undoubtedly be a case of morally dubious experiments.
These sins are not surprising.
Other sins, such as drug abuse and pollution, are sins that bring the Church up to date on hot button issues. These two issues have only been big issues for the past 30 years, so these sins aren't that surprising either.
The sins that are surprising are the ones concerning issues that are social in nature - namely the Church's crusade against poverty.
The fight against poverty is not a strange concept to Catholics. Mission work into impoverished areas of the world has been a mainstay of the church for several years now.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church has always taken a stance against excessive wealth. Most clergy are required to take a vow of poverty upon entering religious life and are restricted from holding certain earthly possessions. While the clergy may not hold steadfast to this vow, they are still required to make it.
Outside of the clergy, however, no formal law regarding poverty or excessive wealth had been put into place by the Catholic Church, which raises the question: Why these laws, and why now?
These sins, mostly social in nature, may represent an attempt by the Catholic Church to regain some its flock.
A 2008 Pew National study indicates the percentage of Americans self-identifying as Catholic is down drastically. While one of three Americans surveyed was born into the Catholic faith, only one of four Americans currently self-identifies as Catholic.
The Catholic Church isn't losing ground to any faith in particular, either. The same Pew National study also found the group with the largest increase in population were those Americans self-identifying as unaffiliated. The religious landscape in the U.S. is more dynamic than ever, and with numbers decreasing rapidly, the Church may see these new sins as a way to attract some of those undecided congregants into their flock.
By preaching against excessive wealth and income disparity, the Church also takes a shot at the growing evangelical Christian population. The Evangelical doctrine of prosperity theology that preaches wealth as a reward for doing God's work stands in stark contrast to the Catholic Church's new social sins.
That's not to say that evangelical Protestants are against mission work. It's quite the contrary; evangelical churches spend a great deal of time and effort ministering in foreign nations.
But the doctrine of wealth through the work of God sends a message that is antithetical to the recent expansion of Catholic dogma.
Protestants aren't without their own new sins, however. Shortly after the Catholic Church's announcement of new sins, the Southern Baptists Convention issued their own statement on the perils of environmental destruction.
It seems everyone is taking a stand on social issues these days, and while the message they deliver can be debated, the fact that organized religion is paying attention to social issues will certainly bring them more coverage - and hopefully some progress, too.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
OK, so maybe the world wasn't actually moved from the invisible line that keeps it upright, and maybe most University students didn't even blink at the announcement.
But the sins themselves have some rather interesting social repercussions and could signal a change in the direction of the Catholic Church and religion in the United States in general.
The new sins officially rolled out March 10 in the Vatican's official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, by Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, who is the head of the bureau in charge of sin and penance.
In the article, Girotti stated what he thought were the new sins for modern Catholics. Girotti started by expanding the definition of what Catholics considered sin and added in several new ones.
"You offend God not only by stealing, taking the Lord's name in vain or coveting your neighbor's wife but also by wrecking the environment, carrying out morally debatable experiments that manipulate DNA or harm embryos," Girotti said.
The sins, meant to accompany the original seven deadly sins issued in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory the Great, include bioethical violations, morally dubious experiments, drug abuse, pollution and social issues such as the expansion of the wealth gap and the creation of poverty.
Catholics stratify their sins between mortal and venial sins. Venial sins are minor sins, which on their own, do not condemn one's soul to eternal damnation. Mortal sins, including the seven newly-minted sins, are serious business and can keep one from entering heaven without proper repentance.
The first few sins are just official codification of previously held beliefs.
For example, abortion and the use of birth control - forbidden in the Humanae Vitae but never officially made a sin - can be easily filed under "Bioethical Violations" and stem cell research or human cloning would undoubtedly be a case of morally dubious experiments.
These sins are not surprising.
Other sins, such as drug abuse and pollution, are sins that bring the Church up to date on hot button issues. These two issues have only been big issues for the past 30 years, so these sins aren't that surprising either.
The sins that are surprising are the ones concerning issues that are social in nature - namely the Church's crusade against poverty.
The fight against poverty is not a strange concept to Catholics. Mission work into impoverished areas of the world has been a mainstay of the church for several years now.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church has always taken a stance against excessive wealth. Most clergy are required to take a vow of poverty upon entering religious life and are restricted from holding certain earthly possessions. While the clergy may not hold steadfast to this vow, they are still required to make it.
Outside of the clergy, however, no formal law regarding poverty or excessive wealth had been put into place by the Catholic Church, which raises the question: Why these laws, and why now?
These sins, mostly social in nature, may represent an attempt by the Catholic Church to regain some its flock.
A 2008 Pew National study indicates the percentage of Americans self-identifying as Catholic is down drastically. While one of three Americans surveyed was born into the Catholic faith, only one of four Americans currently self-identifies as Catholic.
The Catholic Church isn't losing ground to any faith in particular, either. The same Pew National study also found the group with the largest increase in population were those Americans self-identifying as unaffiliated. The religious landscape in the U.S. is more dynamic than ever, and with numbers decreasing rapidly, the Church may see these new sins as a way to attract some of those undecided congregants into their flock.
By preaching against excessive wealth and income disparity, the Church also takes a shot at the growing evangelical Christian population. The Evangelical doctrine of prosperity theology that preaches wealth as a reward for doing God's work stands in stark contrast to the Catholic Church's new social sins.
That's not to say that evangelical Protestants are against mission work. It's quite the contrary; evangelical churches spend a great deal of time and effort ministering in foreign nations.
But the doctrine of wealth through the work of God sends a message that is antithetical to the recent expansion of Catholic dogma.
Protestants aren't without their own new sins, however. Shortly after the Catholic Church's announcement of new sins, the Southern Baptists Convention issued their own statement on the perils of environmental destruction.
It seems everyone is taking a stand on social issues these days, and while the message they deliver can be debated, the fact that organized religion is paying attention to social issues will certainly bring them more coverage - and hopefully some progress, too.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)