The Red Tape in Democracy

Even if you were a victim of Tropical Storm Sandy, you most likely know the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results proved that no one messes with Big Bird.  Check out these memes, if you don't know what I'm referencing.

I'm not going to discuss here how Proposition 49 was added to the Illinois Constitution, or how 3 states (Maine, Maryland, and Washington) welcomed Same-Sex Marriage.

I am going to detail my voting experience for both the 2008 election and 2012 election. 

2008 was my first year able to vote, and I was over 3 hours away at college.  While I supported missing classes, I'm ultimately glad I didn't.  I begrudgenly received my absentee ballot, excitedly filled it out (while double-checking I filled it out correctly), and nervously hoping the USPS wouldn't lose or somehow make my ballot ineligible. Then, I'll never forget as the official call was made, the school's quad was flooded with celebratory students cheering and hugging. There were balloons soon followed by other college debauchery.

2012 was the year I moved out of my parents' home and into an apartment with the boy and our Westie.  I updated my online my address, but didn't need to get a new driver's license since it was in the IL database.  Flash forward to Nov. 6-- I was super excited to receive my voter confirmation registration card in the mail, bring it to my polling site, (which turned out to be a Log Cabin--pat on the back Village of Lombard for that touch of nostalgia.) vote on an official ballot and receive my 'I Voted Today" sticker.  In reality, what happened was I arrived, provided the confirmation registration, proof of my address on a utility bill, and 2 forms of ID then hit a line of red tape.

The lady who made sure I wasn't an impersonator then proceeded to tell me "You have to vote in the city your address lists." 

I countered "No, I updated my address when I moved back in April through the IL database, and gave you proof of my current address and the voting confirmation card that tells me to vote here."

"Well sweetie, that's wrong."

"No it's not.  I get to vote here."

"Let me go check with someone else..."

5 hours minutes later...

"That's fine, but you really shouldn't be voting here."

While angry that receiving my ballot took more time than actually filling it out, (because no I don't want to vote electronically, I want authenticity! We're in a log cabin!) when I did finally submit that ballot to the feeder, hear the confirming beep, and give the doorman a high five all of my negativity towards the voting hold-up was erased.

Victory Democracy was mine!

The Wake-Up Call of the American Dream

The American Dream is a dream that promotes and expands opportunities for all.  It inspires us to be achievers despite what race, gender, or class we may be. It is a dream placed in our heads when we are a little child sitting cross-legged during story time listening to the teacher recite Dr. Seuss and how “You’ll be on your way up!/ You’ll be seeing great sights! You’ll join the high fliers/ who soar to high heights” (9), from Oh the Places You Will Go.  We sit at our art table drawing pictures of what we want to be when we grow up, and besides slight variances, we all, at one point or another, have a vision of a successful career, a family and an abundance of material items that would lead us to perpetual happiness and bliss.  Everyone imagines the storyline and pictures from when we are little, but looking deeper, the dream creates an ideal that is simply unattainable by the majority of the nation.

The American Dream is something that everyone wants to attain.  This leads to a more cut-throat environment, a dog eat dog every man for yourself, an untelevised “Real-World Survivor.” America was originally founded upon the ideals of our founding fathers to become an independent country to have land, freedom of religion, and to let the people have a government that represented and satisfied their demands and dreams.  Then as time progressed, and generations passed, the Dream became more personal and people began wanting to come to America so that, as Spock from “Star Trek” said, “live long and prosper.” 

Despite it all, the want to exceed social, ethnic, or class boundaries and to live a fulfilling life, the American Dream is merely that: a dream.  The concept of the American Dream ignores factors of success such as luck, family, language and wealth one is born into.   Even if people were able to overcome the race, gender and wealth barriers, the melting pot of society would literally spill over because the dream would be attained and people would no longer be working a 12 hour shift placing caps on tubes at a toothpaste factory. 

Though many citizens have an American Dream, it really is little more than wishes and desires drawn up in their heads and occasionally strewn about at that “typical family-night dinner”.   Though the government may be in control by a minute upper-class, the core to America is the middle-class.  This class is what actually fuels the American Dream.  The middle class’ complacency with being “average” has put the American Dream at a standstill.  Yes there are the poor who struggle and have every desirable intention to make it to the top, but very few will succeed.

There will never be the ideal “sunny day and relaxing family vacation free of work and other worries,” or the idea that everyone in society will one day gain tolerance for each other and Miss America will finally be granted her dream of world peace.  Yes, the American Dream may propel us to succeed well in school and continue to put our blood and sweat into our work jobs for economic prosperity, but if the starting point is compared with the ending point, advancement may be seen, but like the great Dr. Seuss said “And will you succeed?/ 98 and ¾ percent guaranteed” (Seuss 32).  This is where we realize that no matter what we do it is not enough.  The American Dream is unattainable.  It is merely a dream we strive for but never reach; the 1 ¼ percent left is the unreachable American Dream.

Collaborative Planning

Last year at one of my high school's professional development meetings, our school showed us this clip right before we discussed prepping students for state tests and collaborative planning, and then they had us teachers take an assessment.  Satire?

I think it's a great, funny, satirical clip. 

 

Repackaging Curriculum and Instruction in America

We need educational reform in America’s educational system, but since this is such a large issue with many variables, we need to start small scale and then widen our scope.  Examining other countries and their secondary education institutions captures a comparative, critical approach of how we (America’s public education system) can adapt educational setup and policies and integrate them into our instructional approaches to engage all students.  We, as teachers, parents, and educators can promote interest in a variety of learning and teaching methods while still meeting the ever-daunting role of continuous assessment data.

I'm actually writing my paper on educational reform with the working title being "Repackaging Curriculum and Instruction in America."  To diminish any bias you may think I hold, let's expose my background regarding education:  I've attended latch-key, year-round schooling on a military base my father was stationed at on the West Coast, I graduated from a public high school, and attended undergraduate and graduate schools at both highly selective, priviatized institutions as well as a state university, leading up to now, me teaching English and Spanish (a core curriculum subject and a fine arts subject) in the same district that I graduated from.  I have siblings who attended Montessori schools, receive tutoring as well as private ACT prep, and are now at my alma mater high school, but despite all of these mixed types of schools, classes, and regions, I cringe at the thought of my future children attending a public high school in America.

I feel one of our main problems is how to deliver instruction to students because it is so complex.  To establish special classes, mentors, accelerated curriculum, enrichment models, special topics, and summer camps to be successful in creating an effective classroom in which all students, regardless of barriers, can succeed is difficult, but it can be done.

I recognize that barriers such as learning levels, styles, socioeconomic status, funding and accountability will make it difficult to do so, but to better education requires a change in society’s perceptions for identifying and educating those who we feel have talent, we need to take time to develop opportunities and programs for everyone and realizing that “giftedness” can exist among the disadvantaged groups as well. 

I know America has the ability to do better, and frankly, we deserve a better education than what our country's current level and quality provides. I've seen, studied, and have been to other countries' school systems and feel that America's current education system is just at the tip of the iceberg regarding educational reform.

I know the next counter is going to be "everyone defines the problem but fails to provide an adequate solution."   I am well aware of the facors including cost, socioeconomic status, state and federal goals and mandates, etc. One aspect of Bad Teacher that I did like was that the author points out you can't make a change with the whole world at once.  Using world hunger as an example: it's impossible and impractical to start a campaign titled "Eliminate World Hunger," but we (society) do have the ability to implement small scale changes--i.e. donating to your local food bank, organizing small food drives, etc.  Small steps mean not being able to get somewhere as quickly, but you're still moving in the right direction, creating progress, and you'll get there eventually.

The Negative Effects of Trying to be Diverse

This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard one of the biggest cases dealing with the issue of race in the preceding 6 years: Abigail Fisher vs. University of Texas. 

In summation, Fisher, a white woman, applied to UT in 2008, but was denied admission to the university, while other people who were "lesser qualified" than Fisher gained admittance.

“There were people in my class with lower grades, who weren't in all the activities I was in, who were accepted into UT. And the only difference between us was the color of our skin," Fisher remarks.

Fisher is challenging UT, claiming they use the issue of racial classification to admit less qualified students to the university, while students like herself, are then turned down, all because they didn't have the acceptable skin color to help the university reach a statistic for diversity, also known as "racial balancing" which was banned by the Supreme Court.

The verdict is still out, but those at home following the issue may inquire how this case was elevated to the Supreme Court.  In 2003, the University of Michigan had a similar case, but won, even though heavily cautioned about their "narrow tailored" criteria regarding race and diversity.  Primary schools in Seattle and Kentucky using race as a "tiebreaker" for admission to their schools had their decisions nullified.

So how can the same concept of using race to gain diversity, and consequently admission (or in Fisher's case, denial) have so many different rulings?  I believe it's because we're still walking the fine line of being accused of discrimination.  Society feels the need to almost overcompensate when dealing with a situation that contains race, and while I concede that we do need to factor in our sensitivity to this civil rights issue, I can't help but compare it with a person who has a disability and struggles with society treating them as an equal.  I feel society often tries to create an advantage for the disadvantaged, even though all the disadvantaged want is to be seen as equal.

Fear and Terror Provide Better Safety

Terror. Fright. Panic. Worry. Apprehension. Phobia.

The Patriot Act. Increased Racial Profiling. Detainments. Watchlists. Warrantless Searches.

All of these are synonyms for fear, and then follows a list of acts that have originated from these fears.

Remember back in 2010 when Jon Stuart created “The Rally To Restore Sanity” and Stephen Colbert followed, when he created “The March to Keep Fear Alive”? If not, Stuart'scan be found here and Colbert's, here.

Posner would in no way consider Stuart or Colbert public intellectuals, but there’s no denying that the two have a big political presence, especially within the media and public sphere. The two use humor, satire, and other elements to appeal to their audiences, but behind all of that lies truth (albeit, their version or take on it) and like their activities mentioned above, appeal to the masses and try to engage the nation in current events. I believe Colbert does a great job of this, especially when he ran for President in 2008, the South Carolina Primary for GOP in early January of this year, and then a few weeks later when he confirmed Stuart would be the official head of his fundraising committee, and then he released the statement "I am proud to announce that I am forming an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for my possible candidacy for the President of the United States of South Carolina!"

Colbert elevated his humor to the next level: he integrated it not only with truth, but also infused it with action. Why would two well-established people such as Stuart and Colbert cross-over into full-fledged politics? I’d like to think part of it was their fear of the current presidential happenings, and turning that fear into a sense of safety. After all, what Stuart and Colbert’s “stint” did was increase awareness of the politics, increase voter turnout, and even increase people to convert their fears into actions that could help indirectly alleviate some of those fears.

In this instance, I it worked to use the tools of fear and mass-media and then challenging us (the public, Americans, the people) to take action.

Accountability on the Interwebz

Accountability on the internet.

Who's responsible for it?
Simple answer would be everyone.

Unfortunately, we can't just say someone's accountable and then they will be, we (the public sphere) need to hold them accountable, and I think a start to learning accountability is developing an understanding of media literacy.

Media literacy is commonly defined as the ability to access, analyze, evaluate and produce media. It is the process of becoming active, rather than passive, consumers of media. The importance of media literacy is that it helps bridge the gap between everyday media use and applying it to another context.

Our society uses media on an everyday basis, so we have the capability to use it, but it's using it properly and effectively that's the trick.  All too often I've seen people post "So many posts about [insert here current political response or response to a major current event]" and leave their response criticizing other media users for sharing, evaluating, and communicating about important events, albeit, sometimes comments that are misinformed, biased, and/or targeted towards a group, but at least their attempting to display a form of media literacy. Whether it's leaving a comment, status, or update on Blogger, Facebook, or Twitter, integrating it into our curriculum as a teacher, or even using the tools it provides to apply it to our jobs, we have an accountability to be effective, responsible media users.

Good Americans

Yesterday, Deepa Kumar was on North Central's campus to speak about the ever-increasing “Islamaphobia” that’s been developing in America, and reflect on her book, duly titled Islamaphobia.  While I wasn’t able to attend (because I was in another class), Dr. Guzman mentioned an email chain letter that he recently received, “10 Reasons Muslims Can’t Be Good Americans” and his shock at the list.

The problem?

The “reasons” listed in the email chain were biased, ignorant, and misinterpreted. Dr. Guzman posts the email chain along with his thoughts on the email, which you can read here.    Dr. Guzman attempts to diffuse the situation about the email, refutes the reasons, offers small concessions (to uphold his validity as unbiased), and then connects to a current hot topic for Americans--I won't spoil it for you, but hint, hint, it deals with a current Presidential Candidate.

Was Dr. Guzman's post a good way to combat “Islamaphobia”?

It’s a two-fold question that we as the public need to constantly consider.  By responding is he able to resonate and deliver “common-sense” to the future audiences (and possibly past readers) of the email, which clearly was lost before?  Or, does it create more problems by elevating this email to a cultural cache?

I like to argue that it depends on the audience and type of public sphere you’re trying to reach.

Let's be "Good Americans" and discuss.

Can Social Media Change the World?

Remember these buzzwords and phrases?

Kony 2012
I like it on the table.
Mark aka, “The Guy At Home In His Underwear”
Kill Your Television

Twitter hashtags, facebook posts, and countless blog entries have used buzzwords similar to above to invoke people to become aware of important issues in society, but the question is: Do they really increase awareness of social issues, and even more importantly, do they invoke change?

Here is a link to examples of how social media has been used to spread awareness and make change in the world, and here are 10 ways to use social media to continue change in the world.


Let's remember the phrase "actions speak louder than words".  Posting on twitter, facebook, and other social media isn't the only action needed, we need ideas that WILL turn into actions, not just criticism-constructive or not.

Debts to Society

What’s our debt to society? Pay taxes, vote, make a change in the world?

What are Public Intellectuals debts to society?  Public Intellectuals, people whose creation and criticism deals with ideals, have a debt to educating and being involved with the public concerning those ideals.   Previous intellectuals exposed the truth, but now, with the rise of the political sphere, intellectuals are needed for evaluating, understanding, identifying, and articulating problems and truth.

Posner gave us notorious lists of top public intellectuals, and I think anyone who reads them has an idea of additions that should be added to those lists.  For me, I believe contemporaries Howard Gardner, Al Gore, Pope Benedict XVI, and Chinua Achebe should be added to that list.

Now the key question: would Posner accept these public intellectuals as possibilities for his lists?  Probably not. 

That doesn’t mean that they aren’t worthy public intellectuals of note, because as we know, and even Posner stated, his definition of Public Intellectuals is formed for him, and not a formed by public consensus. 

I believe the four I listed are distinct persons who have a certain specialty.  Not only do they have influence within specialties ranging from writing to teaching to cultural conflicts to climate crisis to religion, but these people also have the ability to communicate their ideas, educate, and create an influence about their ideals to the public—something I did agree with Posner on, regarding what defines a public intellectual.

These people possess key elements that elevate them to the role of public intellectuals, who in turn pay debts to society.

Thought, existence, and understanding in the Contemporary Public Sphere

Today’s public life and rational debate seems to serve the purpose to evaluate and understand in a clear, concise manner without any preconceived notions, but this does not occur to the extent we would like it to, and Castells categorizes this gap into four distinct, but interrelated, political crises: crises of efficiency, legitimacy, identity, and equity. (82). The public never seems to question things that make sense and seem indubitable, and we (the public) may accept truth, but the biggest concern is that we do not understand truth.  We rely on our senses to tell us truth, and like Habermas mentions, the senses telling us truth derive from newspapers, journals, and debates by public authority (52), but sometimes our senses that lead us to truth can be deceiving.  If the public wants to seek out the truth they need to question (which leads to understanding) the purpose and audience, rhetoric, and means of delivery.  Thought leads to the existence of a public, and existence leads to the public understanding.

The public’s understanding leads to growth: intellectually, morally, and emotionally.  Because of these growths, the public evolves with its interests and interactions with other public groups.  Fraser counters Habermas’ writings with the idea that the public Habermas “idealizes the liberal public sphere but also he that he fails to examine other, nonliberal, nonbourgeois, competing public spheres” (Fraser 115).  While I see Fraser’s point that the founding definition of “a public” and “the public” is outdated and an exclusive portion of the real public that exists, I feel a concession can be made—progress.  Fraser argues for a revision of the public with “the assumption that it is possible for interlocutors in a public sphere to bracket status differentials and to deliberate as if they were social equals” (117), which allows the public to progress by reconstructing or reorganizing experiences.  This is because the previous experiences of a public are connected to newfound experiences and ideas, thus creating more experiences for an ever-changing, ever-evolving public.

Now, let's apply these thoughts and criticisms to today. Today, the public’s sphere is to help serve society (the public) and help the health of public life by correcting unfair opportunities and deficits of the current public.  We see the public sphere through the same means Habermas has mentioned with the addition of other media outlets:television, magazines, and social networking sites, all thanks to our evolving use, interpretation, and understanding of media literacy. A shift in our public sphere has gone from public matters being understood to harvest a better society, and now focuses on social networking which divides a line of being a public sphere or a private sphere.  Before, the debates and criticisms were not about the type of public outlets we (the public) use, but what we did with the information the public gave us and how it affects us as a public whereas now, it is they type of public outlets and why the information we're gettign from them has any relevance to our society.  It relates to the age-old debate of the public being given information from entertainment stars' lives, and whether their lives were public or private, which then shifts us right back to our original writers and criticisms of the focus of a public and the information given and its use to the public. I believe our public sphere is a bit tilted with the misconception that many things that should fall into a private sphere are now emerging into a public sphere, with the mentality "the public's right to know" and "avoid government secrecy".  As a public sphere, we should be trying to keep our public sphere progressing with the use of truth in thought, existence, and understanding.