by Jordana Bradburn
While reading the chapter on interests I really picked up on the idea of subjective and objective interests. I think that when our interests are subjective we become really passionate about the topic at hand because we are directly affected. Whether we are correct or not in believing our interests truly do affect us. I found this to be a really important chapter because this is what connects the average Joe to the political world. No matter who you are, you have interests that are subjective to you. Even as a teenager you find policies that affect you and you take a stand on them. I feel that sometimes though it is almost danger for the general public to have so many subjective interests. Even though we feel that certain policies affect us directly we aren’t always one hundred percent aware of the true history of these particular policies as well as how they actually do affect us.
Making interests in the polis I think is important as well. With National Healthcare we see that the story or politics behind the issue can be the same, but the interests of different groups show through differently. Take doctors, they hear that prices will have ceilings and be regulated, this is something that they don’t want to happen so they take an active stance to make sure that this doesn’t happen. National Healthcare isn’t in the best interests of the doctors. However, when people who are of lower class hear that prices on health services will be regulated they take an active stance to try and make this happen.
The chapter also made me think on how people make interest subjective to them. Stone’s reading said subjective interests are those that people BELIEVE to affect them. We formulate opinions on different things not always based on how it actual affects us but how we believe it to affect us because when asked your stance on a policy people expect you to come back with something more than “Oh it doesn’t affect me, I don’t have an opinion.” Topics such as abortion and capital punishment aren’t exactly issues that directly affect us all but, I’m sure anyone you talk to takes a stance on those topics as if it is an actual subjective interest in their life. I strongly believe that when the general public becomes overwhelmed with topics they believe to affect them they let the ones that actually do pass them by. People seem to be more interested in huge national issues that may never have any reach to them instead of those little things about your city that appear on our voting ballots. I know for my personal self that I educate myself more on the things that I feel I should know more about because that’s what society calls for then being
educated in the ones I really need to be even though they are smaller and may only pertain to the people that live in the same city or state.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Questions from Jordana and Neil
Jordana
1. How do you think objective and subjective interests influence peoples
automatic translation from their passive situation into an active stance?
2. Do you think giving your child up for adoption would have an inherent
effect which from Stone's reading would be an objective interest or would
it be considered a subjective interest which would directly effect the
child?
Neil
1. How do the politics behind the proposal of nationally provided
healthcare shape and influence different groups perceptions on the issue?
2. Do you feel that Wilson's distribution-of-effect theory is correct? Why
or why not. It states: the interests of small minorities intensely
affected by something will dominate the interests of large majorities only
incidentally affected by something.
1. How do you think objective and subjective interests influence peoples
automatic translation from their passive situation into an active stance?
2. Do you think giving your child up for adoption would have an inherent
effect which from Stone's reading would be an objective interest or would
it be considered a subjective interest which would directly effect the
child?
Neil
1. How do the politics behind the proposal of nationally provided
healthcare shape and influence different groups perceptions on the issue?
2. Do you feel that Wilson's distribution-of-effect theory is correct? Why
or why not. It states: the interests of small minorities intensely
affected by something will dominate the interests of large majorities only
incidentally affected by something.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Who is to Blame for the Cause the Government or the People?
By: Tyler Ingley
When considering who is to blame for the cause of something I believe that the higher order or the government is to be held responsible for whatever cause happens whether it be positive or negative. They are the ones who make the causes whether they are unguided or purposeful. Stone stated that whenever an action is committed there is an outcome and it may be positive or negative. Since the government makes these decisions then they are to blame for the outcome or be praised if it is a positive outcome. Stone discussed for types of causes and I will elaborate on each of them to prove how the government or the higher authorities are responsible for the causes. The first is mechanical cause. It is defined as things that have no will of their own but are designed, programmed, or trained by humans to produce certain consequences. For example, the media often displays advertisements on unhealthy foods. When we as a society watch television many people buy into this and it causes us to go out and by the unhealthy foods which ultimately leads to malnutrition. The higher authority here is the people who allow these advertisements to be aired, therefore they are to blame. Mechanical causes try to brainwash people and the government try's to in a sense brainwash its voters into buying into their policies. The second cause are intentional causes. These are defined as when causes that lay the blame directly at someone's feet. Either someone acted in order to bring about the consequences, or someone acted even though they knew what the outcome was going to be. This cause again proves that government is solely responsible for the causes that happen because they have the power to intentionally put into effect what they want, whether the outcome is positive or negative is 100% up to them, not the society. The third type of causes are inadvertent causes. At first they may not seem like the government is responsible for them because they often are unforeseen side effects in a policy, however it is due to their carelessness that the side effect came to be so again they are responsible for what has occurred. A well constructed example of this is a policy that at first was well intended but the consequences came about later and ultimately the policy turned negative and the government is blamed again. The fourth and final cause is accidental. The reason I chose to do this one last is because it is the only cause that has the least amount of blame on either the government or the people. Accidental causes are natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Stone states that politically this is a good place to retreat if one is
being charged with responsibility because accidental causes are that of fate. No one can control fate, only God and most of the time it is not a wise decision to include God when you are introducing policies or are running for a campaign, simply because the idea of religion and government mixed together is something that is fading away more and more. Anyways, back to the reason the government can still be held responsible for accidental causes is because they are responsible for the aftermath of the tragedy. Many people blamed the government for not acting quick enough when Hurricane Katrina hit, later reports confirmed that the government knew how big the storm was and should have evacuated the entire area, but did not. In this example they are to blame for the cause, even though Hurricane Katrina was an accident. A question that came to mind when reading about all the causes is what "caused" the economy to be in the state that it is currently in. Was it intentional cause? Or was it a complete accident? Or even inadvertant? In my opinion I think that it was a matter of avoidable ignorance. I think they could have taken precautions to avoid it like, stopping the funding for Iraq way sooner. It has cost us a ridiculous amount of money which has put into a massive amount of debt. The housing market is another reason as well, shady loan sharks gave out loans that at first seemed like a viable option for American families to buy their first homes, but later were screwed because of it. In the end our government is solely responsible for the causes that are implemented into our society, that is why we vote to put them in office, because we expect them to perform so that our country stays on top.
When considering who is to blame for the cause of something I believe that the higher order or the government is to be held responsible for whatever cause happens whether it be positive or negative. They are the ones who make the causes whether they are unguided or purposeful. Stone stated that whenever an action is committed there is an outcome and it may be positive or negative. Since the government makes these decisions then they are to blame for the outcome or be praised if it is a positive outcome. Stone discussed for types of causes and I will elaborate on each of them to prove how the government or the higher authorities are responsible for the causes. The first is mechanical cause. It is defined as things that have no will of their own but are designed, programmed, or trained by humans to produce certain consequences. For example, the media often displays advertisements on unhealthy foods. When we as a society watch television many people buy into this and it causes us to go out and by the unhealthy foods which ultimately leads to malnutrition. The higher authority here is the people who allow these advertisements to be aired, therefore they are to blame. Mechanical causes try to brainwash people and the government try's to in a sense brainwash its voters into buying into their policies. The second cause are intentional causes. These are defined as when causes that lay the blame directly at someone's feet. Either someone acted in order to bring about the consequences, or someone acted even though they knew what the outcome was going to be. This cause again proves that government is solely responsible for the causes that happen because they have the power to intentionally put into effect what they want, whether the outcome is positive or negative is 100% up to them, not the society. The third type of causes are inadvertent causes. At first they may not seem like the government is responsible for them because they often are unforeseen side effects in a policy, however it is due to their carelessness that the side effect came to be so again they are responsible for what has occurred. A well constructed example of this is a policy that at first was well intended but the consequences came about later and ultimately the policy turned negative and the government is blamed again. The fourth and final cause is accidental. The reason I chose to do this one last is because it is the only cause that has the least amount of blame on either the government or the people. Accidental causes are natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Stone states that politically this is a good place to retreat if one is
being charged with responsibility because accidental causes are that of fate. No one can control fate, only God and most of the time it is not a wise decision to include God when you are introducing policies or are running for a campaign, simply because the idea of religion and government mixed together is something that is fading away more and more. Anyways, back to the reason the government can still be held responsible for accidental causes is because they are responsible for the aftermath of the tragedy. Many people blamed the government for not acting quick enough when Hurricane Katrina hit, later reports confirmed that the government knew how big the storm was and should have evacuated the entire area, but did not. In this example they are to blame for the cause, even though Hurricane Katrina was an accident. A question that came to mind when reading about all the causes is what "caused" the economy to be in the state that it is currently in. Was it intentional cause? Or was it a complete accident? Or even inadvertant? In my opinion I think that it was a matter of avoidable ignorance. I think they could have taken precautions to avoid it like, stopping the funding for Iraq way sooner. It has cost us a ridiculous amount of money which has put into a massive amount of debt. The housing market is another reason as well, shady loan sharks gave out loans that at first seemed like a viable option for American families to buy their first homes, but later were screwed because of it. In the end our government is solely responsible for the causes that are implemented into our society, that is why we vote to put them in office, because we expect them to perform so that our country stays on top.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Natural vs. Social
by Stephen Chafi
There are two view points for interpreting the world these days. The natural world and the social world. Both of these worlds are different but still result in something happening. The results can be as small as an argument between two people or as big as a hurricane. The point being that even if these two worlds are different they both effect our world and how we live in it. But which of the two effect us more in the current time we live in?
In any view points of the world, things happen that is out of our control. The natural world view point focuses on occurrences to be undirected or out of our control. In the Stone book, they use the example of a cold front hitting a warm front. A storm occurs and can destroy everything it touches. It could destroy people homes and lives, but there is no willful intention of that. No human made that storm and focused it on the town to destroy it. It was a natural occurrences out of anybodies control. The natural world is made of fate, chance, and unforeseen accidents. Some my choose to believe that there is a higher being that does all of this for a reason, but the fact remains that it is still out of our hands. As a community we accept the fact that stuff is going to happen that is beyond our control and do our best to work around it.
Now on the other side of the spectrum; we have the social world. The social world is directly influenced by human will. This world is not based of chance, instead it is based off control and intent. To understand it completely, one must understand that you must be able to identify the motives of a group or person and link them with there actions to understand what they want. Because of this we can influence people many ways. This includes flattering, bribing, threatening, helping, fighting, and loving. People use these things to change the course of events so they can benefit our needs more. In the social world, there is no chance or random accidents; there is only what we do to influence people.
So the question comes up, which of the two effects us more in the current world. I believe that both co-exist. There are things in this world that we cant control like hurricanes. But think about after the hurricanes, we choose to send more money to those states hit hard and help rebuild what they lost. We use the social view to solve the things we can not control. With out one, I do not think that the other would exist. We as people are just going to have to live with what we can not control and then take advantage of the stuff we can control, and hope that it all works out for the best.
There are two view points for interpreting the world these days. The natural world and the social world. Both of these worlds are different but still result in something happening. The results can be as small as an argument between two people or as big as a hurricane. The point being that even if these two worlds are different they both effect our world and how we live in it. But which of the two effect us more in the current time we live in?
In any view points of the world, things happen that is out of our control. The natural world view point focuses on occurrences to be undirected or out of our control. In the Stone book, they use the example of a cold front hitting a warm front. A storm occurs and can destroy everything it touches. It could destroy people homes and lives, but there is no willful intention of that. No human made that storm and focused it on the town to destroy it. It was a natural occurrences out of anybodies control. The natural world is made of fate, chance, and unforeseen accidents. Some my choose to believe that there is a higher being that does all of this for a reason, but the fact remains that it is still out of our hands. As a community we accept the fact that stuff is going to happen that is beyond our control and do our best to work around it.
Now on the other side of the spectrum; we have the social world. The social world is directly influenced by human will. This world is not based of chance, instead it is based off control and intent. To understand it completely, one must understand that you must be able to identify the motives of a group or person and link them with there actions to understand what they want. Because of this we can influence people many ways. This includes flattering, bribing, threatening, helping, fighting, and loving. People use these things to change the course of events so they can benefit our needs more. In the social world, there is no chance or random accidents; there is only what we do to influence people.
So the question comes up, which of the two effects us more in the current world. I believe that both co-exist. There are things in this world that we cant control like hurricanes. But think about after the hurricanes, we choose to send more money to those states hit hard and help rebuild what they lost. We use the social view to solve the things we can not control. With out one, I do not think that the other would exist. We as people are just going to have to live with what we can not control and then take advantage of the stuff we can control, and hope that it all works out for the best.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Questions for Tomorrow, March 18
Stephen Chafi
1) Who's fault is it? If a drunk driver gets in a car wreck and injures or kills someone, who's fault is it. Does the responsibility get placed on the person who choose to drink and drive or does the blame get placed on the company that made the drink?
2) Why do people that are victimized by a problem not seek political change. Is it because they do not see the problem as changeable or do they not have the necessary resources to change this problem?
Tyler Ingley
1) Why is it that people prefer casual stories over complex stories? Have we been programmed in our democracy to accept the casual stories of politicians because they "seem" good at the time and they are not full of details?
2) Stone stated "We look for causes not only to understand how the world works but to assign responsibility for causes", he used the example of cigarette smokers to look deeper as to why society blames either the tobacco companies for all of the smoke related deaths or the smokers themselves for the deaths. Do you feel that the cause of deaths are the producers or consumers? Explain why the side you chose is the cause.
1) Who's fault is it? If a drunk driver gets in a car wreck and injures or kills someone, who's fault is it. Does the responsibility get placed on the person who choose to drink and drive or does the blame get placed on the company that made the drink?
2) Why do people that are victimized by a problem not seek political change. Is it because they do not see the problem as changeable or do they not have the necessary resources to change this problem?
Tyler Ingley
1) Why is it that people prefer casual stories over complex stories? Have we been programmed in our democracy to accept the casual stories of politicians because they "seem" good at the time and they are not full of details?
2) Stone stated "We look for causes not only to understand how the world works but to assign responsibility for causes", he used the example of cigarette smokers to look deeper as to why society blames either the tobacco companies for all of the smoke related deaths or the smokers themselves for the deaths. Do you feel that the cause of deaths are the producers or consumers? Explain why the side you chose is the cause.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Symbols by Michael Moore
Although we as people use symbols every day, our most used and most
important symbol is our language. Written and spoken language is our main
source of communication (though technology is slowly diminishing that),
and without it we would have great confusion. But this unique ability to
communicate so effectively is what sets us apart from all other animals.
Another huge difference between humans and animals is our variety of
culture. And as Steven Pinker claims, our language is shaped by our
culture. This theory has been backed by many anthropologists who have
studied language structure in different communities and even tribes. We
as humans have put labels or words on every thing, idea, and concept, so
naturally we will use these symbols in such a way that expresses what is
important and what’s not so important in our culture. Studying the
language of any culture is a very effective way to learn about how the
people live. Pinker also points out that language is a reflection of
culture, instead of the culture being shaped by the language spoken. I
think it is interesting that the language or symbols we use are
constantly changing as long as our culture and way of life continues to
change and develop.
How can we live without symbols? Without them there is no way to
communicate or represent our thoughts and/or needs. Our language is a
complex set of symbols with a very particular set of rules that allow us
to express anything that we could think of. The words themselves are
symbols with a specific meaning as well as how we deliver the words to
whoever is listening. An example of this would be sarcasm. The literal
meaning of the sentence is usually very far off, if not the complete
opposite of, what the speaker is trying to say. I’m curious to see how
our society will change in future years and the effects it will take on
our language.
important symbol is our language. Written and spoken language is our main
source of communication (though technology is slowly diminishing that),
and without it we would have great confusion. But this unique ability to
communicate so effectively is what sets us apart from all other animals.
Another huge difference between humans and animals is our variety of
culture. And as Steven Pinker claims, our language is shaped by our
culture. This theory has been backed by many anthropologists who have
studied language structure in different communities and even tribes. We
as humans have put labels or words on every thing, idea, and concept, so
naturally we will use these symbols in such a way that expresses what is
important and what’s not so important in our culture. Studying the
language of any culture is a very effective way to learn about how the
people live. Pinker also points out that language is a reflection of
culture, instead of the culture being shaped by the language spoken. I
think it is interesting that the language or symbols we use are
constantly changing as long as our culture and way of life continues to
change and develop.
How can we live without symbols? Without them there is no way to
communicate or represent our thoughts and/or needs. Our language is a
complex set of symbols with a very particular set of rules that allow us
to express anything that we could think of. The words themselves are
symbols with a specific meaning as well as how we deliver the words to
whoever is listening. An example of this would be sarcasm. The literal
meaning of the sentence is usually very far off, if not the complete
opposite of, what the speaker is trying to say. I’m curious to see how
our society will change in future years and the effects it will take on
our language.
Michael Moore's Two Questions
Question 1: How do politicians use and manipulate symbols to control the population and/or get what they want?
Question 2: Humans are creatures that have used symbols for as long as we have been alive. What causes us to use symbols? Why are they so essential to a human society?
Question 2: Humans are creatures that have used symbols for as long as we have been alive. What causes us to use symbols? Why are they so essential to a human society?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Allison Wachtel's Two Questions
1. Can you identify any of the linguistic/rhetorical strategies that Stone mentions in any specific political speeches or philosophies? Which one(s) tend to move you most?
2. Do you think linguistic/rhetorical techniques have a legitimate place in political dialogue, campaigning, etc.? If not, what do you think our political system would look like if only the “trickle-up” theory were employed? Would it be more or less efficient?
2. Do you think linguistic/rhetorical techniques have a legitimate place in political dialogue, campaigning, etc.? If not, what do you think our political system would look like if only the “trickle-up” theory were employed? Would it be more or less efficient?
Symbols in Public Policy
by Allison Wachtel
Linguists generally acknowledge two main theories of language. One, which Steven Pinker spoke about in the assigned video, posits that language is shaped by culture; it is a tool of both the individual and society to communicate content and relationships. The second, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, suggests that language can actually dictate culture and thought by raising awareness of what it describes. A common example: the Inuit people have many more words for snow than we do as English speakers. Do they have so many terms for that single subject because of their environment and the subsequent importance of snow in their lives, or does the mere condition of having so many descriptors make them more aware of the different types of snow (thus necessitating those descriptors)?
Political language can be interpreted with similar variation. It seems to me, however, that when the speech in question is political, people tend to view it through both interpretations simultaneously: Either the politician is trying to “impose his/her beliefs” on the audience (the first hypothesis) or he/she is trying to “brainwash” the audience into putting more credence on a subject than it deserves, overlooking the real problems, etc. (the second hypothesis). This kind of reaction is certainly not unjustified; undoubtedly, there are indeed politicians who would love nothing more than for their peers and constituents to forget the substance of their policies and listen only to the language with which they were presented. However, I think it is important to remember the original role of emotion in language. The linguistic and rhetorical devices that Stone, Pinker, and Westin discuss are all intended to elicit some kind of emotional response from the listener – not necessarily to deceive, but to enable. Evolutionarily, emotion enabled us to make decisions (the right ones, hopefully) in dangerous situations where extensive reasoning would have been impossible. Now, they allow us to integrate values and logic in our political decision-making – a notion that might seem questionable on the surface but one that I think we would be reluctant to forsake. Thus, the linguistic and rhetorical techniques that politicians use might actually be marks of human communication at its most efficient.
Linguists generally acknowledge two main theories of language. One, which Steven Pinker spoke about in the assigned video, posits that language is shaped by culture; it is a tool of both the individual and society to communicate content and relationships. The second, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, suggests that language can actually dictate culture and thought by raising awareness of what it describes. A common example: the Inuit people have many more words for snow than we do as English speakers. Do they have so many terms for that single subject because of their environment and the subsequent importance of snow in their lives, or does the mere condition of having so many descriptors make them more aware of the different types of snow (thus necessitating those descriptors)?
Political language can be interpreted with similar variation. It seems to me, however, that when the speech in question is political, people tend to view it through both interpretations simultaneously: Either the politician is trying to “impose his/her beliefs” on the audience (the first hypothesis) or he/she is trying to “brainwash” the audience into putting more credence on a subject than it deserves, overlooking the real problems, etc. (the second hypothesis). This kind of reaction is certainly not unjustified; undoubtedly, there are indeed politicians who would love nothing more than for their peers and constituents to forget the substance of their policies and listen only to the language with which they were presented. However, I think it is important to remember the original role of emotion in language. The linguistic and rhetorical devices that Stone, Pinker, and Westin discuss are all intended to elicit some kind of emotional response from the listener – not necessarily to deceive, but to enable. Evolutionarily, emotion enabled us to make decisions (the right ones, hopefully) in dangerous situations where extensive reasoning would have been impossible. Now, they allow us to integrate values and logic in our political decision-making – a notion that might seem questionable on the surface but one that I think we would be reluctant to forsake. Thus, the linguistic and rhetorical techniques that politicians use might actually be marks of human communication at its most efficient.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Which is more important: Liberty or Security?
By Tyler Lee
The first thing that comes to mind for me when discussing the topic of
liberty and security is the US Patriot Act. I feel this is the most
relevant issue when discussing this topic and it is the most recent issue
in this discussion. This act, signed by former President Bush, gives law
enforcement agencies more freedom to search communication records and
financial records, and it gives them more freedom for using “big
brother-like” intelligence gathering. This act was created to “protect
the people” during a time of fear after September 11. The Patriot Act has
helped arrest and detain a few people before they have been able to commit
crimes. It can be said that it has raised security in America and
protected the nation. It can also be said that it has greatly taken away
our liberties. There are many innocent citizens that have been detained
without their constitutional rights, because the Patriot Act allows this
to occur. The act allows the government to tap phone lines, read e-mails,
and survey other forms of communication that would have otherwise been
kept private. In short, it has taken away the privacy of the individual.
The same privacy that our founding fathers made sure to give the citizens
in the Declaration of Independence when they use the word “liberty”.
One can argue that the Patriot Act protects life and builds extra
security. This idea of protecting “life” is also mentioned in the same
line in the Declaration as “liberty”. One must also note the last idea
mentioned in that line is the “pursuit of happiness”. When I think of the
idea of Liberty and Security in relation to the Declaration, I feel it is
important to use the idea of “pursuit of happiness”, to ask the question,
“Does raised security with less liberty, or raised liberty with less
security bring more happiness?” Personally, I think there needs to be a
balance. But there are people who believe in more security and there are
others who believe in more liberty.
Going back to the plan of the founding fathers, I think their idea was
more freedom for the individual. Do I think we are in the same situation
as we were in the 1700’s? No. I do not think that we can compare our
security and freedom then, to what it is now. In relation to freedom, we
had just broken away from the rule of England and were in the state of
mind that we were now free. In the present day, we have lived with the
idea of freedom for a few centuries. Also, I think our nation faces more
threats now than back in our country’s beginning. With the wars occurring
and the more dangerous weapons, security is a big issue that needs to be
covered. Although, I want there to be more freedom, I think it is
something that needs to be sacrificed to protect our safety as a nation,
and as individuals. I do think the Patriot Act is the wrong type of
security but I think America is trying.
In relation to this idea, one idea by Isaiah Berlin stood out to me.
Berlin’s central focus was individual freedom and how to protect it. To
me, it seems like security is the way to protect individual freedom. We
are a nation based on freedom and liberty. If we were to lose a war and
be taken over, we would lose our individual freedom. To protect ourselves
from this negative outcome, we must use security to remain safe. This is a
balance between liberty and security, and it would still protect our
individual freedom.
The first thing that comes to mind for me when discussing the topic of
liberty and security is the US Patriot Act. I feel this is the most
relevant issue when discussing this topic and it is the most recent issue
in this discussion. This act, signed by former President Bush, gives law
enforcement agencies more freedom to search communication records and
financial records, and it gives them more freedom for using “big
brother-like” intelligence gathering. This act was created to “protect
the people” during a time of fear after September 11. The Patriot Act has
helped arrest and detain a few people before they have been able to commit
crimes. It can be said that it has raised security in America and
protected the nation. It can also be said that it has greatly taken away
our liberties. There are many innocent citizens that have been detained
without their constitutional rights, because the Patriot Act allows this
to occur. The act allows the government to tap phone lines, read e-mails,
and survey other forms of communication that would have otherwise been
kept private. In short, it has taken away the privacy of the individual.
The same privacy that our founding fathers made sure to give the citizens
in the Declaration of Independence when they use the word “liberty”.
One can argue that the Patriot Act protects life and builds extra
security. This idea of protecting “life” is also mentioned in the same
line in the Declaration as “liberty”. One must also note the last idea
mentioned in that line is the “pursuit of happiness”. When I think of the
idea of Liberty and Security in relation to the Declaration, I feel it is
important to use the idea of “pursuit of happiness”, to ask the question,
“Does raised security with less liberty, or raised liberty with less
security bring more happiness?” Personally, I think there needs to be a
balance. But there are people who believe in more security and there are
others who believe in more liberty.
Going back to the plan of the founding fathers, I think their idea was
more freedom for the individual. Do I think we are in the same situation
as we were in the 1700’s? No. I do not think that we can compare our
security and freedom then, to what it is now. In relation to freedom, we
had just broken away from the rule of England and were in the state of
mind that we were now free. In the present day, we have lived with the
idea of freedom for a few centuries. Also, I think our nation faces more
threats now than back in our country’s beginning. With the wars occurring
and the more dangerous weapons, security is a big issue that needs to be
covered. Although, I want there to be more freedom, I think it is
something that needs to be sacrificed to protect our safety as a nation,
and as individuals. I do think the Patriot Act is the wrong type of
security but I think America is trying.
In relation to this idea, one idea by Isaiah Berlin stood out to me.
Berlin’s central focus was individual freedom and how to protect it. To
me, it seems like security is the way to protect individual freedom. We
are a nation based on freedom and liberty. If we were to lose a war and
be taken over, we would lose our individual freedom. To protect ourselves
from this negative outcome, we must use security to remain safe. This is a
balance between liberty and security, and it would still protect our
individual freedom.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Two Questions by Mr. Tyler Lee
1. Do you think America's form of liberty is closer to Berlin's idea of Positive Liberty or Negative Liberty? Explain your answer. How do you think America developed into this type of liberty? Do you think it is successful, or should it be changed?
2. Our founding fathers created our nation based on freedom and liberty. Do you think if they were alive now, they would be please with what America's freedom is now, or would they think America has given up too much freedom? Explain with some examples.
2. Our founding fathers created our nation based on freedom and liberty. Do you think if they were alive now, they would be please with what America's freedom is now, or would they think America has given up too much freedom? Explain with some examples.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Giving Up Freedom to Protect Freedom
by Ben Martinez
I know that I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to politics and political concepts but when I think about liberty and freedom, and I am sure I am not the only one, I immediately think of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration which declared, as mentioned in the readings, that there exists a certain minimum area of personal freedom which must never be violated. They declared rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be inalienable rights or rights that are so undeniable that no one and especially no government can take them away. Although the founders declared all three to be inalienable, I occasionally wonder when I read that line whether they were intentionally listed in that order. Were they trying to tell us something? For example where they saying: you can limit the pursuit of happiness to ensure liberty and limit liberty to protect life? I don’t think they were but it raises an interesting topic of the balance between security and liberty.
In the readings Isaiah Berlin mentions the limits of freedom. He says that great thinkers have been asserting that if we had unlimited freedom, “because it would entail a state in which all men could boundlessly interfere with all other men; and this kind of 'natural' freedom would lead to social chaos in which men's minimum needs would not be satisfied”. He goes on to say that “they put high value on other goals, such as justice, or happiness, or culture, or security, or varying degrees of equality, they were prepared to curtail freedom in the interests of other values and, indeed, of freedom itself.” They would curtail ‘freedom’ in the interest of ‘freedom’.
Is it ever necessary to give up certain freedoms to preserve others? Before we can answer this question we must first decide what liberty and freedom mean? Well liberty can mean a lot of things, it can be the freedom to do a certain act without fear of danger or harm, it can be the freedom to receive the minimum resources necessary to reach ones own potential, or it can be the freedom to remain unobstructed and pursue your own happiness. This brings us back to the questions at hand; can free action be limited by law? Can it be protected by law? Does this even make sense? If you go with the last definition probably not, however I think that certain rules are necessary to protect free action. Without rules we would be reduced to chaos; however I feel that those rules can and should be instituted in a way that would maximize freedom and limit regulation. In writing our Constitution the founders set up a framework to protect freedom. In reading the preamble you hear: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. It is clear to me that they felt that liberty can be protected by a set of rules.
In closing I would like to end with a quote from Benjamin Franklin which I feel is relevant. The quote says “those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.”
I know that I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to politics and political concepts but when I think about liberty and freedom, and I am sure I am not the only one, I immediately think of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration which declared, as mentioned in the readings, that there exists a certain minimum area of personal freedom which must never be violated. They declared rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be inalienable rights or rights that are so undeniable that no one and especially no government can take them away. Although the founders declared all three to be inalienable, I occasionally wonder when I read that line whether they were intentionally listed in that order. Were they trying to tell us something? For example where they saying: you can limit the pursuit of happiness to ensure liberty and limit liberty to protect life? I don’t think they were but it raises an interesting topic of the balance between security and liberty.
In the readings Isaiah Berlin mentions the limits of freedom. He says that great thinkers have been asserting that if we had unlimited freedom, “because it would entail a state in which all men could boundlessly interfere with all other men; and this kind of 'natural' freedom would lead to social chaos in which men's minimum needs would not be satisfied”. He goes on to say that “they put high value on other goals, such as justice, or happiness, or culture, or security, or varying degrees of equality, they were prepared to curtail freedom in the interests of other values and, indeed, of freedom itself.” They would curtail ‘freedom’ in the interest of ‘freedom’.
Is it ever necessary to give up certain freedoms to preserve others? Before we can answer this question we must first decide what liberty and freedom mean? Well liberty can mean a lot of things, it can be the freedom to do a certain act without fear of danger or harm, it can be the freedom to receive the minimum resources necessary to reach ones own potential, or it can be the freedom to remain unobstructed and pursue your own happiness. This brings us back to the questions at hand; can free action be limited by law? Can it be protected by law? Does this even make sense? If you go with the last definition probably not, however I think that certain rules are necessary to protect free action. Without rules we would be reduced to chaos; however I feel that those rules can and should be instituted in a way that would maximize freedom and limit regulation. In writing our Constitution the founders set up a framework to protect freedom. In reading the preamble you hear: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. It is clear to me that they felt that liberty can be protected by a set of rules.
In closing I would like to end with a quote from Benjamin Franklin which I feel is relevant. The quote says “those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.”
Ben Martinez two questions
Is it sometimes necessary in order to protect life to sacrifice a little liberty? To what degree have we given up liberty to ensure personal security? Is this a bad thing?
Does positive liberty lead to inevitable horrors as was mentioned in “We will force you to be free”? Does negative liberty just lead to chaos? What are some examples?
Does positive liberty lead to inevitable horrors as was mentioned in “We will force you to be free”? Does negative liberty just lead to chaos? What are some examples?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
What Will our Planet Look Like in 50 Years?
by Scott Bergemann
Humans are unique in the sense that we can adapt within a matter of years. We don’t need reproductive mutation passed on through thousands of generations to develop a useful characteristic. We have technology. Ironically, the blind use of human technology is actually the cause of this potentially disastrous climate change. Ever since the industrial revolution we’ve been hopeless technology addicts. Lately we’ve come to find out that, although our modern technological advances are really fun and make us feel super cool, they aren’t very good for the earth’s health. The earth is obviously pretty sick---Hurricane Katrina, Europe’s heat wave, South Asia’s Tsunami---and scientists predict it is only going to get worse. In fact they have seriously been predicting climate change for the last ten years, and their predictions are daunting. They are predicting warmer temperatures, sea level rises, and even extinctions within the next twenty years. Look out your window right now, and remember it. When you’re old and dying, it’s not going to be the same looking world. I’m not a scientist so I can’t tell you exactly what it will look like, but it won’t be the beautiful place humans have come to know and love. It will sadly be marred by humans. Your children and grandchildren will not enjoy the same luxuries of playing outside on green grass that you did; it will be to dry and water will be much to precious for grass to grow freely, and the air quality would likely be unhealthy for the sensitive lungs of a child.
America has the most resources and influence of any other country on this planet. We have boundless technological capabilities, but it is how we use these capabilities that really counts. Currently we are not doing nearly enough to actually reduce green house gases and harness climate change. You can’t tell me that we have the technology to explore space, but we can’t develop a personal automobile that drives on earth without tarnishing the environment. It’s a bunch of bullshit. The fact is, no one up in Washington cares about the well being of the planet and its people; they care about money and power. The system is so inundated with special interest money---money pumped in by America’s top 1% so they stay at the top---that it is nearly impossible to get environmental interests considered. These wealthy lobbyists, CEO’s, and politicians may know that climate change is coming, but they know their money is going to come a hell of a lot faster. If you take a real, genuine moral high ground in politics, you lose all of your contributions, and you lose your job.
America claims to be the leader in the mitigation of global efforts to reduce green house gases world-wide, but we need a lot less commercials and a lot more action. We have to seat a momentous example, not minor regulations here and there. It is paramount that this reaction to climate change happens on a global scale, and therefore it would take tremendous cooperation and communication between the world’s powers.
It would be easy to isolate America from the rest of the world and not participate in these complex global policy issues. But that is an unrealistic way of thinking. The western countries let the proverbial genie out of the bottle years ago during the glorious industrial revolution, and now these developing countries want to have their wishes of living prosperously granted too. Problem is that we kind of realized what we were doing was uhhhh….BAD! So now we have a huge conflict of global values. Half of the globe has a secure way and means to living so they have half-heartedly moved on to caring for the security of the earth. The other half of the globe is trying to secure the coveted lifestyle we enjoy with no concern for the long-term health of the planet. Who is right? WAR!!!!!!!!!!
Humans are unique in the sense that we can adapt within a matter of years. We don’t need reproductive mutation passed on through thousands of generations to develop a useful characteristic. We have technology. Ironically, the blind use of human technology is actually the cause of this potentially disastrous climate change. Ever since the industrial revolution we’ve been hopeless technology addicts. Lately we’ve come to find out that, although our modern technological advances are really fun and make us feel super cool, they aren’t very good for the earth’s health. The earth is obviously pretty sick---Hurricane Katrina, Europe’s heat wave, South Asia’s Tsunami---and scientists predict it is only going to get worse. In fact they have seriously been predicting climate change for the last ten years, and their predictions are daunting. They are predicting warmer temperatures, sea level rises, and even extinctions within the next twenty years. Look out your window right now, and remember it. When you’re old and dying, it’s not going to be the same looking world. I’m not a scientist so I can’t tell you exactly what it will look like, but it won’t be the beautiful place humans have come to know and love. It will sadly be marred by humans. Your children and grandchildren will not enjoy the same luxuries of playing outside on green grass that you did; it will be to dry and water will be much to precious for grass to grow freely, and the air quality would likely be unhealthy for the sensitive lungs of a child.
America has the most resources and influence of any other country on this planet. We have boundless technological capabilities, but it is how we use these capabilities that really counts. Currently we are not doing nearly enough to actually reduce green house gases and harness climate change. You can’t tell me that we have the technology to explore space, but we can’t develop a personal automobile that drives on earth without tarnishing the environment. It’s a bunch of bullshit. The fact is, no one up in Washington cares about the well being of the planet and its people; they care about money and power. The system is so inundated with special interest money---money pumped in by America’s top 1% so they stay at the top---that it is nearly impossible to get environmental interests considered. These wealthy lobbyists, CEO’s, and politicians may know that climate change is coming, but they know their money is going to come a hell of a lot faster. If you take a real, genuine moral high ground in politics, you lose all of your contributions, and you lose your job.
America claims to be the leader in the mitigation of global efforts to reduce green house gases world-wide, but we need a lot less commercials and a lot more action. We have to seat a momentous example, not minor regulations here and there. It is paramount that this reaction to climate change happens on a global scale, and therefore it would take tremendous cooperation and communication between the world’s powers.
It would be easy to isolate America from the rest of the world and not participate in these complex global policy issues. But that is an unrealistic way of thinking. The western countries let the proverbial genie out of the bottle years ago during the glorious industrial revolution, and now these developing countries want to have their wishes of living prosperously granted too. Problem is that we kind of realized what we were doing was uhhhh….BAD! So now we have a huge conflict of global values. Half of the globe has a secure way and means to living so they have half-heartedly moved on to caring for the security of the earth. The other half of the globe is trying to secure the coveted lifestyle we enjoy with no concern for the long-term health of the planet. Who is right? WAR!!!!!!!!!!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Scott Bergemann's Two Questions
1. Do you think the current American environmental policies and efforts to address climate change have been sufficient in addressing the problem? Do you think politicians view climate change as a serious issue? Should it be a big issue? What further policies do you think should be implemented?
2. Do you think life on this earth (not the cities and cars, but the oceans, lakes, forests, nature etc.) will be any different for you children? Grandchildren? Great grandchildren? Do you think the policies made today will affect the earth looks like in seventy years?
2. Do you think life on this earth (not the cities and cars, but the oceans, lakes, forests, nature etc.) will be any different for you children? Grandchildren? Great grandchildren? Do you think the policies made today will affect the earth looks like in seventy years?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
What is Efficiency? From Dash Kramer
Efficiency is defined as an accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort. In her book, Policy Paradox, Deborah Stone agrees with this definition saying that a company is most efficient when they do an amazing job with what ever budget they may have. He talks about what makes a library efficient. When a library has an array of updated books with what low budget they may have is when they are considered efficient to Stone.
To me this isn’t the case at all. A company is efficient when they complete what goal they set out to do at the beginning of the year. They may achieve this by what ever means necessary. They don’t have to use all of their money or they can use it all and more if need be. A company is efficient when they achieve what they need to by what ever it takes. In the case of a library; to me, it can be efficient if they have to most commonly used books. It does not matter if they use all of their money or that they have a large selection of books but only if they have books that the customers need.
Efficiency to me is almost like a power struggle. Companies look at themselves by how efficient they are and what they accomplish as a company and if they met all of the requirements that were set at the beginning of the year. When the head of your company thinks that another company got better numbers than them and was there for more efficient the head of your company is going to get angry and want to do better in the next term to show that our company is the best. Efficiency is all about power to me when it comes to the big companies, who can do better than the others, there for is the better company.
What they fail to realize and what Stone fails to realize is that companies can be a great and efficient if they meet their set goals and standards and make their customers happy. A company may profit from meeting the quotas but if they really want to make as much money as they can then they need to treat those people the best and put the most time into them, the customer. The customer is the one who is going to keep coming back and putting more money into the company. When you have thousands and maybe even millions of them if you are one of the bigger companies and all of those customers are giving money back to the company from their yearly earnings. This will also help them out in the long run because if they create long lasting positive relationships with their customers then the customers and going to keep coming back and will tell the people that they know about your company which will create even more profit for your company. It is a huge circle that turns and turns and turns and always comes back to you. Companies should have their motto’s as “you get out what you put in.” If companies lived by this then they would make more money than they could e
To me this isn’t the case at all. A company is efficient when they complete what goal they set out to do at the beginning of the year. They may achieve this by what ever means necessary. They don’t have to use all of their money or they can use it all and more if need be. A company is efficient when they achieve what they need to by what ever it takes. In the case of a library; to me, it can be efficient if they have to most commonly used books. It does not matter if they use all of their money or that they have a large selection of books but only if they have books that the customers need.
Efficiency to me is almost like a power struggle. Companies look at themselves by how efficient they are and what they accomplish as a company and if they met all of the requirements that were set at the beginning of the year. When the head of your company thinks that another company got better numbers than them and was there for more efficient the head of your company is going to get angry and want to do better in the next term to show that our company is the best. Efficiency is all about power to me when it comes to the big companies, who can do better than the others, there for is the better company.
What they fail to realize and what Stone fails to realize is that companies can be a great and efficient if they meet their set goals and standards and make their customers happy. A company may profit from meeting the quotas but if they really want to make as much money as they can then they need to treat those people the best and put the most time into them, the customer. The customer is the one who is going to keep coming back and putting more money into the company. When you have thousands and maybe even millions of them if you are one of the bigger companies and all of those customers are giving money back to the company from their yearly earnings. This will also help them out in the long run because if they create long lasting positive relationships with their customers then the customers and going to keep coming back and will tell the people that they know about your company which will create even more profit for your company. It is a huge circle that turns and turns and turns and always comes back to you. Companies should have their motto’s as “you get out what you put in.” If companies lived by this then they would make more money than they could e
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Alexander Daley's Two Questions
1. Does the attachment of a title to a seller's name (such as Ph.D., M.D., etc.) blind a consumer to the fact that the person doing the selling is advertising a good or service, regardless of the quality of the service? Is this an efficient way of going about, for example, finding a doctor for your children?
2. Since we are dependent on sellers, what type of relationship between you and the seller is most beneficial? One of mutual exchange? Fear?
2. Since we are dependent on sellers, what type of relationship between you and the seller is most beneficial? One of mutual exchange? Fear?
Dash Kramer's Two Questions
Do you feel that a "library" or any company/ business is efficient when
they have the most outcome from what budget they may have? and how do you
measure when a business/ company is efficient?
when two parties agree on a deal, should the give and take be an immediate
result or can it be a long-term result and is that still an efficient
deal??
they have the most outcome from what budget they may have? and how do you
measure when a business/ company is efficient?
when two parties agree on a deal, should the give and take be an immediate
result or can it be a long-term result and is that still an efficient
deal??
Teacher Student Relations -- by Alexander Daley
The easiest way to understand an efficient relationship between a consumer and a seller; is to compare that relationship to a student and his or her teacher. Because titles attached to names influence the how we look at one another. In college, students are predominately taught by professors who have achieved the level of Ph.D. in their particular field. We as college students listen to what they have to say and immediately file it in our brains under the heading of: COMPLETE TRUTH. Why do we do this? Because they are "doctors", what they say has to be true, right? Well…maybe. As Stone states, "Any suppliers who sell a combination of services and advice - directly shape the preferences of their consumers." Then again, why listen to Stone? Because she was able to get her words published in a book? For now, we'll proceed with that conclusion.
A medical school friend of mine once asked me this question: "Alexander, what are the similarities and differences between a Ph.D., an M.D., and an R.D.?" When I could not answer he said, "M.D. and R.D. are exactly the same thing, because Medical Doctors are actually Real Doctors. A Ph.D. is not." I told this joke to my grandmother who just recently got her Ph.D., and she did not speak to me for a week. She was insulted for two reasons: First, I minimized the effort she spent on becoming a professor. Second, I undermined the authority of her title. Although I felt bad and eventually apologized, I still agree with my friend. Professors are not "doctors". They cannot prescribe medication or offer medical advice about the human body. They are; however, highly decorated with the title, because of their level of education in their field of study. Needless to say, I no longer tell this joke around the CLU campus, in fear for my grades. Which leads to the question, what type of relationship is best to have with a professor if you are a student?
You cannot have a relationship with a teacher geared toward mutual gain. What you have to say and offer, they have probably heard from countless other students or have studied for themselves first hand. Students may not have anything original to offer, but professors do (or so we are forced to believe). Going back to what I asked before, why do we file what they say under: COMPLETE TRUTH? I should follow this question with: Do you really have a choice? The relationship is one based upon the hierarchy of authority. The relationship is more based on fear of failure than anything else. There exists a subconscious cause and effect fear that usually sounds like, "If I don't listen to them, then I will probably fail the class." Stone also says that there is a measure of pleasure that we derive from watching others in a state of discomfort. Questions and challenges put people in a state of discomfort. Professors asked questions and face us with challenges. But when we answer a question correctly or overcome a challenge, we (as consumers) feel better.
This argument could go on for pages and pages. The bottom line is that both consumers and sellers have to follow what John Nash defined as: Game Theory; in order to have society function efficiently. Doing what is best for oneself, while doing what is best for the collective (or relationship). For whatever their reason (and there are several), students must listen to their teachers to do what is best for themselves and TRUST that what they are being taught is the truth. Likewise, teachers must teach in a way that is best for their students collectively. No doubt, we want to defy authority. We sing about it, write books on it, and sometimes we practice defiance. However, we have to put down the torches and pitchforks, push certain urges aside, and accurately define a relationship. Otherwise efficiency would forfeit to chaos. Then again, why listen to me?
A medical school friend of mine once asked me this question: "Alexander, what are the similarities and differences between a Ph.D., an M.D., and an R.D.?" When I could not answer he said, "M.D. and R.D. are exactly the same thing, because Medical Doctors are actually Real Doctors. A Ph.D. is not." I told this joke to my grandmother who just recently got her Ph.D., and she did not speak to me for a week. She was insulted for two reasons: First, I minimized the effort she spent on becoming a professor. Second, I undermined the authority of her title. Although I felt bad and eventually apologized, I still agree with my friend. Professors are not "doctors". They cannot prescribe medication or offer medical advice about the human body. They are; however, highly decorated with the title, because of their level of education in their field of study. Needless to say, I no longer tell this joke around the CLU campus, in fear for my grades. Which leads to the question, what type of relationship is best to have with a professor if you are a student?
You cannot have a relationship with a teacher geared toward mutual gain. What you have to say and offer, they have probably heard from countless other students or have studied for themselves first hand. Students may not have anything original to offer, but professors do (or so we are forced to believe). Going back to what I asked before, why do we file what they say under: COMPLETE TRUTH? I should follow this question with: Do you really have a choice? The relationship is one based upon the hierarchy of authority. The relationship is more based on fear of failure than anything else. There exists a subconscious cause and effect fear that usually sounds like, "If I don't listen to them, then I will probably fail the class." Stone also says that there is a measure of pleasure that we derive from watching others in a state of discomfort. Questions and challenges put people in a state of discomfort. Professors asked questions and face us with challenges. But when we answer a question correctly or overcome a challenge, we (as consumers) feel better.
This argument could go on for pages and pages. The bottom line is that both consumers and sellers have to follow what John Nash defined as: Game Theory; in order to have society function efficiently. Doing what is best for oneself, while doing what is best for the collective (or relationship). For whatever their reason (and there are several), students must listen to their teachers to do what is best for themselves and TRUST that what they are being taught is the truth. Likewise, teachers must teach in a way that is best for their students collectively. No doubt, we want to defy authority. We sing about it, write books on it, and sometimes we practice defiance. However, we have to put down the torches and pitchforks, push certain urges aside, and accurately define a relationship. Otherwise efficiency would forfeit to chaos. Then again, why listen to me?
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Power of Placeblogs
I'm working on an article revision that examines power in the city and my short academic attention span has wandered over to the phenomenon of placeblogging as a potential challenge to established centers of power. The traditional debate in the literature on urban power centers around whether power is mostly hegemonic (power over) or transactional (power to).
I'm interested in the role that placeblogging might play in challenging both hegemonic and transactional power, but particularly the latter. A transactional view suggests that power is forged through the process of social production. Social production is the process of pooling resources to achieve a desired goal. In the urban context, important resources like wealth, knowledge and political power are seen as narrowly controlled.
However, placeblogs have the potential to redefine the social production process. While there aren't many of them, they are growing. Lisa Williams describes placeblogs as focusing on:
In their intent, these blogs are designed to reduce the costs of social production. One example comes from a website called Clever Commute in which transit riders on the Baltimore Washington corridor alert each other of delays and cancellations. The Baltimore Sun reports that the website has partnered with the Baristanet.com placeblog to expand the service's reach.
In this case, if the end goal of social production is to gain greater information about commute delays, "the crowd" is a much better gatherer of knowledge resources than traditional news sources. The placeblog provides a convenient way to aggreagte information of interest to residents in a neighborhood. Recent development have made it easier to aggregate individual placeblogs. Type in outside.in/(your zip code) and you will get an page that collects placeblog postings about your neighborhood. For example, here's the page for my neighborhood.
My interest is in the potential for these networks of placeblogs to engage in social production that challenges power. Have placeblogs been used to stop development or to get a pothole fixed?
I'm interested in the role that placeblogging might play in challenging both hegemonic and transactional power, but particularly the latter. A transactional view suggests that power is forged through the process of social production. Social production is the process of pooling resources to achieve a desired goal. In the urban context, important resources like wealth, knowledge and political power are seen as narrowly controlled.
However, placeblogs have the potential to redefine the social production process. While there aren't many of them, they are growing. Lisa Williams describes placeblogs as focusing on:
the lived experience of a place. That experience may be news, or it may simply be about that part of our lives that isn't news but creates the texture of our daily lives: our commute, where we eat, conversations with our neighbors, the irritations and delights of living in a particular place among particular people. However, when news happens in a community, placeblogs often cover those events in unique and nontraditional ways, and provide a community watercooler to discuss those events.
In their intent, these blogs are designed to reduce the costs of social production. One example comes from a website called Clever Commute in which transit riders on the Baltimore Washington corridor alert each other of delays and cancellations. The Baltimore Sun reports that the website has partnered with the Baristanet.com placeblog to expand the service's reach.
In this case, if the end goal of social production is to gain greater information about commute delays, "the crowd" is a much better gatherer of knowledge resources than traditional news sources. The placeblog provides a convenient way to aggreagte information of interest to residents in a neighborhood. Recent development have made it easier to aggregate individual placeblogs. Type in outside.in/(your zip code) and you will get an page that collects placeblog postings about your neighborhood. For example, here's the page for my neighborhood.
My interest is in the potential for these networks of placeblogs to engage in social production that challenges power. Have placeblogs been used to stop development or to get a pothole fixed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)