Think Again RPCVs: Robert L. Strauss Revisited

\ Leave a Comment \ by

Most Peace Corps volunteer placements will be in soft positions where big steps towards progress are not feasible. I have sent some students into Peace Corps. One gave up after 6 months. The other stayed an extra year and when her project failed because of local government interference it broke her heart.

The idea of bringing high school students to rural Haiti is ridiculous. I have been with undergraduate and graduate students. They have to be mature enough to deal with what they have to live in. College grads are just barely mature enough to be away from home in a strange country.

Not to sound like I am a Pollyanna for the Corps, but I do think that Volunteers have a big impact. Maybe not all of us, but enough come back and teach, enter public service, run for office, conduct research. The rest of us understand foreign events better than the average citizen, who I might add could use a better international education here. I served with some of the best of the best. I wasn’t one of them, but I tried. I could enter a short list here, but I don’t want to embarrass anybody.

Avram Primack, in a comment on Think Again RPCVs: Robert L. Strauss, May 20, 2008

My hurt little ego aside, I think Mr. Primack is simply wrong; to me, his post represents a lack of imagination that seems particularly upsetting given that in less than five months we may have the first African American president of the United States.

There’s no guarantee that Obama will succeed, but this seems like a good time to dream big. I can’t set out a detailed proposal, given space limitations, but I can sketch out how a program such as the one I suggested might work, starting with the 9th grade.

Continue Reading →

Posted in: Autobiographical, Economics, Online Places, Professional, Writing

Wack is Back, Part II

\ Leave a Comment \ by

BARBARA FORREST knew the odds were stacked against her. “They had 50 or 60 people in the room,” she says. Her opponents included lobbyists, church leaders and a crowd of home-schooled children. “They were wearing stickers, clapping, cheering and standing in the aisles.” Those on Forrest’s side numbered less than a dozen, including two professors from Louisiana State University, representatives from the Louisiana Association of Educators and campaigners for the continued separation of church and state.

That was on 21 May, when Forrest testified in the Louisiana state legislature on the dangers hidden in the state’s proposed Science Education Act. …

The act is designed to slip ID in “through the back door”, says Forrest, who is a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and an expert in the history of creationism. She adds that the bill’s language, which names evolution along with global warming, the origins of life and human cloning as worthy of “open and objective discussion”, is an attempt to misrepresent evolution as scientifically controversial.

Forrest’s testimony notwithstanding, the bill was passed by the state’s legislature – by a majority of 94 to 3 in the House and by unanimous vote in the Senate. On 28 June, Louisiana’s Republican governor, Piyush “Bobby” Jindal, signed the bill into law. The development has national implications, not least because Jindal is rumored to be on Senator John McCain’s shortlist as a potential running mate in his bid for the presidency.

“New legal threat to school science in the US,” 09 July 2008, New Scientist, Amanda Gefter

I’ve written about this sort of thing several times before but these creationists, uh, intelligent design-ists, are the Energizer Bunny of radical Christian idiocy. It’s almost perfectly Orwellian: teachers are free to teach students non-science in the name of scientific objectivity.

I keep wondering at what point this sort of thing will create a common sense uprising. Why does any Christian want to compete with the schools, for one thing, or with science, for another? It seems to me that religions have much more effective methods of persuasion than the classroom.

Posted in: Language, Writing

The Myth of Multitasking

\ Leave a Comment \ by

In one of the many letters he wrote to his son in the 1740s, Lord Chesterfield offered the following advice: “There is time enough for everything in the course of the day, if you do but one thing at once, but there is not time enough in the year, if you will do two things at a time.” To Chesterfield, singular focus was not merely a practical way to structure one’s time; it was a mark of intelligence. “This steady and undissipated attention to one object, is a sure mark of a superior genius; as hurry, bustle, and agitation, are the never-failing symptoms of a weak and frivolous mind.”

Christine Rosen, “The Myth of Multitasking,” The New Atlantis, Spring 2008

I have to say that, despite being a dyed-in-the-wool computers and writing guy, I find this sort of discussion refreshing. In my own work, I find that a limited amount of multitasking is very helpful. Right now, for example, I am listening to WILL’s program Sidestep. (It’s pretty good, but amateurish in some ways).

I discovered as a teenager that this kind of white noise is helpful. On the other hand, after working online full time for a few years I have discovered that it’s best to turn off email while I am writing or commenting on papers. I sometimes put on a video instead of a podcast, but I usually listen more than watch.

There’s also been a few stories recently about “no email Fridays” and the like which seems to confirm that multitasking can be counter-productive. I am not sure that I would go as far as Chesterfield, but it may be true that what we thought was helpful is going to turn out to be much less so.

I sense an economic blind spot. I have been thinking about Twitter in these terms, too. A colleague, for example, shared this post (via listserv) on “25 Twitter Tips for College Students.” What I find so interesting is that each item on the list is either unnecessary or better done in other ways.

Why have so many online “presences” at all? I think Twitter– and the Iphone– illustrate the absurdities that arise when consumerism meets technological fetishism. I’m hoping for a backlash that focuses on using these tools well.

Posted in: Autobiographical, Composition, Language, Online Places, Professional, Writing

Parity for Mass Transit

\ 1 Comment \ by

The buzz on gas prices has people rethinking the way they travel. USA Today recently reported record breaking public transit ridership based on a study by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). For the months of January through March 2008 ridership increased 10% when compared to the same months in 2007. And while many riders are making the switch due to rising fuel prices, many of them stick to public transit for its “service and convenience,” according to Linda Robson of Seattle’s Sound Transit. For riders fortunate enough to live and work near major bus and rail lines, the shift makes a lot of sense.

But how many people really have this good fortune? According to the 2006 US census, only about 1 in 5 households. The logical solution: Make bus and rail lines more extensive. The bleak reality: No one wants to pay for it.

Enviroblog, “Public funds for public transport,” Jorg Etilico, July 3, 2008

Here’s a remarkable fact, from the The Northeast-Midwest Institute: “Highways get approximately $30 billion from the federal government in the Highway Trust Fund alone, while railway funding at best is $1 billion from all sources, for all purposes.”

Now try to image if we could insist on parity– if we spend $30 billion on highways and bridges, then we must also spend $30 billion on mass transit, including Amtrak. We need the jobs, we need the bridges fixed, and we need to change how we use energy. It seems like a no-brainer.

Actually, more personally, I am sick of dealing with airports whenever I want to travel to Louisiana and Texas to see my family. I would be happy to spend a day and a half on a train each way, twice a year, especially if there was a sleeper car and wireless access.

[This note comes from Amanda, at Enviroblog: “One thing — the post’s photo was by Jorg Elitico. The post itself was by our intern Sameem. Sorry for the confusion!”

Thanks! — Ray]

Posted in: Autobiographical, Economics, Writing