A Final Reflection...

Since this is the first and only blog of my digital immigrant/native life, (I consider myself some sort of hybrid I suppose) I will use an entry to reflect upon my English 3010 course, the reason that I created it at all. This course allowed me to step outside of my comfort zone and experiment with my writing a bit. For the first essay assignment, I wrote an analysis of Herman Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivener," in the style of David Foster Wallace in "Host." This was a combination of two of the essay prompts, and presented a unique challenge which I embraced every step of the way. It didn't end up being some great piece of writing that is worthy of publication, obviously, but it worked. The fact that I was able to make it work was a huge success for me and made me much more confident in my abilities as a writer. Our next essay assignment came after the conduction of a heavy amount of research on bias in the mass media, specifically political bias between the two major parties in America. I was thankful for the practice that the essay provided as we had to propose a solution to the bias problem, but I really took an interest in the research and presentation of the bias itself. Our class was filled with participatory members, so debates and other discussions were able to flow and uncover an abundance of arguments from all sides. This work will not only help me should I choose to pursue a career in public relations or social science, but it will also help with general life skills. It was an invaluable and enjoyable experience overall. The final research essay will undoubtedly be a helpful, career preparing endeavor as well. I enjoyed the readings, writings and certainly the discussions, but the most memorable part of this course will definately be my contact with John Ziegler. There was much debate following the reading of "Host," so I decided to spew my thoughts in class and my blog alike. However, John Ziegler (the focal point of Wallace's piece) found my blog and challenged me to hear his side, his truth. We scheduled a time and spoke on the phone for an extended period of time. I am still not sure how that conversation has affected me and my views, but I do know that it was an unique experience that I value the opportunity to have had. I went into this term fearing a general english composition class, but got so much more out of it. I want to thank my classmates and Professor Marshall for this semester and wish you all the best of luck no matter where life takes you.

A Moral Dilemma

The 2008 election was highly centered around the presidential race, and rightly so, which ended in the historic election of Barack Obama. However, I believe that the increased attention surrounding this year's election overshadowed another important aspect of it. Proposals one and two both dealt with morally binding issues that draw strong feelings on both sides. For this post, I am going to look specifically at proposal one, which legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes. Now, many look at the passing as a negative, as though this will suddenly allow a spike in not only the medicinal, but also the recreational use of what is considered an illegal street drug. My feeling is that this passing was the right choice by the American public, however. Some would argue that a synthetic form of the THC drug would be a far safer and superior way to go. My argument is that legalizing and distributing a synthetic form would lead to far more negative repercussions. Lets face the facts, marijuana is very much available on the streets already for those who choose to seek it out. Thus, why should we deprive those who are in constant pain from getting some relief through a more natural means? People argue the negative effects of illegal street drugs on the body, but legal prescription drugs can and often do have effects which are at least equally detrimental. Why is it that the list of possible side effects for a drug are often worse than the condition for which the drug is prescribed? Furthermore, wouldn't a synthetic version of THC allow for even more drug abuse? Prescription drugs are misused and abused with staggering frequency here in America, so why would we synthesize THC to allow it to end up in the wrong hands and be taken by the handful by some abuser? In the end, the problems associated with street drugs are not and will not be because an 80 year old man is smoking in order to alleviate his cancer pain. They happen because irresponsible individuals are able to get their hands on street and illegitimate prescription drugs far too easily and then abuse them. If there is a natural way to help someone on their death bed, why not let them utilize it rather than adding another pill for them to force down their throat only to deal with the side effects which accompany it? Those who wish to abuse drugs, illegal or prescription, are going to find a way to get their hands on them. Furthermore, there are many cases of teens overdosing on over the counter cough medicines or huffing aerosal cans to get high. The point is, there is always a way for irresponsible individuals to abuse and it will be impossible to prevent or circumvent such abuse in many or all cases. Thus, let those who are in serious pain get relief through marijuana if they so choose. It is a personal choice that needs to be made. The passing of proposal one doesn't directly affect me as abortion laws don't and likely (hopefully) never will. However, in "the land of the free" are we allowed to take these options away just because we do not morally agree with them? I would argue no....

Tell Us Something We Didn't Know....

Yesterday, December 1st, 2008, it was announced that the United States economy is officially in a recession. Really? We hadn't noticed. My mass communications course has allowed me to take a deeper look into the media and concepts such as "agenda setting" that are closely tied to the media. The media has been covering the poor state of the economy, but it seemed as though they were reporting just enough to make it a concern, but not reporting the complete reality of the situation. I suppose that they wanted to do enough to make it a news story which can lead and gain ad revenue each night, but stop just short of spreading mass panic. I knew that things were bad and the news media told me that they were getting worse, but reality didn't set in until this evening. My mother's company is going to close its doors, hopefully only for a few months, but the company's future looks grim. My dad said that funds are getting tight for his company as well, and that he has heard whispers of a similar situation. I knew that there was a recession, largely because the media told me there was one, but one day after the media conceded to admit it, I realized just how real this all is.

Opening the Resource Pool

There was a lot of noise spread when the popular band "Radiohead" placed one of their albums online and allowed listeners to "pay as much or as little as they liked for it." By doing this, they were able to cut out the record companies, but were also able to put their music out there for any and all to hear. They were able to gain many new fans, because curious people could go online and get the album without having to put money on the line to do so. It was a brilliant idea, because it created a stir and got more publicity to them and the album. My feeling is that the resource pool ought to be opened up for more industries in a similar fashion. Take for example Google. They wanted to create a book archive that would hold full text editions of as many books as they could gather. The publishing companies and even many of the authors stood in their way, however. My feeling is that these companies and writers ought to open up to the idea, because it would be bound to help them sell more books.

Many people don't just go snooping around book stores and libraries anymore in search of entertainment. The digital age, as I touched on in earlier posts, has taken over. Thus, if the consumer could conduct a google search and have some author's work hit on the search, they could read a summary or even begin to read the book online. If interest is sparked, that person would be far more likely to go and purchase a tangible version that can be transported and read more easily. Now, if I am writing a book that will likely be a "New York Times Bestseller," I may opt to wait to have it added to such a free outlet. However, most people write to be heard, but their voice isn't loud enough. This can offer a way for those voices to be discovered and heard. Interest could be sparked online, and all of a sudden a book that otherwise would have gathered dust in a bookstore is selling respectable numbers of copies.

Academic Adaptation

I've recently read Marc Prensky's piece on "Digital Natives," discussing how academia ought to alter its meathods of teaching to better suit today's technologically adept generations. I agree with Prensky that technology ought to play a role in the education process, largely because it is an unavoidable reality that will play an ever-growing role in society. This can be quite beneficial and should not be overlooked. However, I feel that Prensky goes too far with his plan. It has always been a dilemma; how much responsibility is on the teachers to gain student attention and inspire learning versus how much is on the student to make an effort and want to learn. In the end, there has to be some sort of a balance. Prensky proposes video games and other meathods to teach these "digital native" generations as opposed to the "outdated" meathods of textbooks and lectures. I would have to disagree with this, his overriding point throughout the piece. Textbooks and other exercises are becoming available online within the status quo. My feeling is that academia ought not cater to the students at every turn. Society and life beyond school certainly will not be this way. Learning should take some effort; it has never been an easy thing, but the challenge plays a large part in making it a rewarding and memorable experience. The "a-ha" moments are crucial in a child's development. We cannot teach children to rely solely on technology because it has yet to prove to be a flawless and absolute solution. These children will go through school and move on to a job where they will have to use some hybrid of technology and the older meathods of "digital immigrants." It is imperative that we continue to update the way in which we teach students to include new technology and improve the learning experience, but we cannot make it a process solely done via technology.
There is another aspect that Prensky discussed which got me thinking. The "digital natives" have an ever-shortening attention span and are often much more impatient. They are so used to having information come to them in seconds with "Google" and other search engines. When natives are doing research, I have found that they, including myself, get impatient if they do not get all of the information that they need in a few minutes of general internet research. (The fact that many professors and teachers allow and encourage internet research is another sign that technology is indeed being integrated.) They expect things to be handed to them, people to cater to them. That is why we cannot completely give in and create an all technology, video game based learning meathod. Why is it that students on campus expect and demand professors to e-mail them back immediately as my professor has attested to? It takes only minutes or even seconds to read and respond to an e-mail, but that still doesn't mean that the professor has the time to check their e-mail and respond. This highlights the fact that "digital natives" expect things to revolve around them in many cases. Technology can be a very beneficial tool in the learning process as well as the development of society. However, we must integrate technology into academia and our lives in a way which will be most beneficial to learning. If these generations are developing shorter attention spans because of technology, school can act as a mediator to help them utilize the resources available and mandate that they listen to another speak as they will have to do in the real world. Allow technology to come into the classroom, but do not completely abolish all of the traditional techniques.

Bias in Academia

Recently I have been looking at the works of David Horowitz with regards to academic bias. In short, he argues that the education you attain in American universities holds a heavy liberal bias. Personally, I think that it is hard to argue, primarily from an English or social sciences aspect, that many of the professors do lean to the liberal side of politics. The question becomes, however, should we adopt the "Academic Bill of Rights" that Horowitz proposes? My feeling, as a more conservative student attending a more liberal university (Wayne State University within the urban setting of Detroit), is that this proposal goes too far. Conservative groups are free to invite speakers onto campus in the same respects that liberal groups can. I disagree with any sort of affirmative action-like method to hiring professors. Professors are hired because they are well educated experts within their field of study. They ought to be free to present the material that they have spent years studying. I do believe that both sides should be addressed to some degree, but why mandate that some sort of equality constraint be placed on all issues. As a Christian I am well informed about creationism. The key there is that this holds religious bearing, so why should it be mandated that an evolution lecture be followed by a creationism lecture. Here, one is saying that a scientific theory with tangible results be countered by a theory that banks on pure belief. I also don't think that any sort of mandate with respect to addressing both sides would change anything. Professors which are equal to both sides now will continue to be equal as much as humanly possible. Those who aren't will likely address the opposing side and continue on to disprove it or prove it inferior in some way. I absolutely agree that there should be some sort of equality and balance, but that balance has to come naturally. We almost have to hope that conservative groups make more noise in terms of guest speakers and such, because a mandate is unfair, unproductive and unreasonable. By the time one reaches the university level, they are considered adults. Each of us must think for ourselves. The responsibility should lie in the hands of the individual to be well informed and make rational decisions on their own. Now, if a professor is punishing a student for having an opposing view, then proper action ought to be taken through the university's dean or other means. However, it should again, be up to the students in many respects to be proactive in their education and think for themselves. I have had many professors with a strong liberal lean, but I have to be rational and evaluate the information for myself. The media has its own set of problems when it comes to bias, but the status quo has many placing the responsibility on the consumer to get well informed from both sides. At least in academia you are forced in some cases to hear the opposite side and argue your position, whereas in the media you can tune out anything that disagrees with you. It is healthy and essential to get both sides of politics, but this has to come naturally if we truly hope to achieve balanced and well-rounded individuals. I can agree with Horowitz in the sense that more equity would be preferable, but his "Academic Bill of Rights" just doesn't seem like it could be effective. The professor is a human being just as I am, so why should I fear speaking to him in a respectful and hopefully productive way. As a soccer coach, my players influence me and my person just as I do them. The same can be true for academics. Sure one's political stance is often much more deeply rooted, but a lot depends on the individual's upbringing as well. Much research has proven that we are influenced far more in our younger years, prior to adulthood. Once one gets to college, they have the base set in terms of their beliefs. Perhaps Horowitz should look at a younger demographic to see if bias is being institued from an earlier point. College students themselves bear the responsibility to be well informed, and I don't see them changing what has been instilled from much younger age. Agree or disagree, comments and questions are always welcomed...

A Leap Forward

America, a nation that has had a civil war to settle the dispute over African Americans as slaves, has now elected a biracial, African American to the White House. This is an extraordinary step forward for our nation; A nation that has been built upon ideas of equality and great opportunity has taken another step in proving that such philosophies are possible, making them a reality. No matter where you stand politically, socially or economically, it is important to take a step back and realize that we are writing history through this election and the presidency to follow. While my vote was not cast for the now president elect, I will now support him and hope that he can come through on his promises of change with regards to the economic crisis, war in Iraq, and many other issues which face our nation today. There is no mistaking that he is an incredibly intelligent individual, and I hope that he proves to be an effective leader as well. I am hopeful already, because he has extended his hand to Michigan in an attempt to help resolve the auto industry's great struggles by adding Governor Granholm to his cause. It was moving to see Reverend Jackson, Colin Powell, Oprah, and many other public figures, along with everyday Americans, crying on Tuesday night when the results came in. When you see that sort of emotion get drawn out, it really helps to put the magnitude of the event in perspective. No matter what happens from this point forward, history was made. This was not just another presidential election. My hope, however, is that President Obama is remembered not only for being the first African American president, but also for being the hero who dug America out of extremely difficult times on many different fronts.