Blog 9: The Missing Blog!

Yes, folks, I have been searching the ancient ruins of the Nacirema for the legendary Missing Blogs of Parsons University. I have crawled across ruins, fought scavengers and computer viruses, scoured the internet for traces of evidence put in by some op-ed column guy long, long ago. At last, in Washington, near something called a Post, I have found it: the topic of the Lost Blog of Parsons U.!

Here's the link.

Here's my question, after you read the Op-Ed piece: at what price do we keep our rights as American citizens? Do we waive these rights if we are suspected (or proven) to be in the midst of a terrorist attack on our country?

Let's say things are different in NYC. Say this alleged terrorist was NOT a member of The Idiot Club of Terrorists. Say he knew how to put together a bomb that could kill hundreds. Or thousands. Or, if he had a nuclear device, millions. At what level do we waive the Miranda rights of American citizens?

Remember, this man is NOT a foreign national. He is a naturalized American citizen. If he called for a lawyer, and then refused to speak about the whereabouts of the weapon he'd initiated, what then would we do? At what point are the protected freedoms guaranteed to each citizen in the Constitution trumped by national interest?

Your thoughts, in about 300 words or so, will do nicely, and this will constitute the Missing Blog of Parsons U.

-- MP

Blog 9: The End of Manhood

Let's jump into gender politics for the moment, shall we?

I found this link to be interesting. I've only skimmed it, but it seems that there's a book out that calls for the end of "manhood" -- that is, male behavior. So, I suppose I'd like to have you read this and give me a reaction to what this writer is talking about.

Are we wrong to have gender identification? Do gender roles get governed by society, or are they genetic in nature? If we were to eliminate masculinity, what kind of society would we have? And if you've got anything to add to this, I'd like to hear it -- so long as you're at least at 300 words.

Ladies, have at it. Gents -- we're looking outnumbered.

-- MP

Blog 8: Privacy Online

Okay, the short and sweet. Due Friday, 300 words on this topic of online privacy. How much of you is on the 'net? Can you find out sensitive information about yourself? (Be sensible about revealing what you can/not find on yourself in cyberspace, please).

The link is here.

Good hunting. Due Friday, 4/9

Week 7: Back In The Saddle Again

Blogophiles --

Well, I've recovered sufficiently from the past week's Michael Martone workshop to get us back on track. That means the return of the blog assignments.

Here's an interesting article I found on the Obama Administration and their habit of blaming everybody's favorite boogeyman, George W. Bush, for the current economic crisis.

Everyone by now knows the drill - 300 words on the article, what you found interesting, what you agree or disagree with. By now, most people are becoming savvy enough readers to find other sources to refute/augment their counter-arguments or points. See if you can work in other people's writing to buttress your points, or take down your opponents' argument.

This blog is due Monday, after class (call it 5 pm). Thus, you have about 5 days to work on this one. Enjoy

-- MP

Week 5: Better Late Than Never

So, just when you thought you were going to skip out on the blog for the week(end). I give you the ever erudite George F. Will.

The story can be found here. Don't forget the 2nd page - you'll have to click on it at the bottom to complete the argument.

So -- what do we make of "nudging"? What's Will trying to say in this piece? I have some ideas, but I want to hear what you say, of course. That's one reason why we do this blog -- to see what you make out of these sorts of things.

George F. Will probably has more education than all 26 of us put together. He's a ridiculously educated man. But I want to know -- is he RIGHT? What do you think of the practice of 'nudging' as Will describes it? Is nudging the same thing as manipulation? Why or why not? You have at least 300 words to state your case. Due Monday. Late Monday.

Enjoy, folks.

-- MP

Week 4: Censorship and the Blogosphere

Our merry travels through the internet world and responding to readings continues with this little ditty from The Washington Post's Ombudsman.

The link can be found here.

I'm assuming you know what an ombudsman is. If you don't, look it up.

So, this begs several questions: what is censorship in today's world, and what is revision? In this instant-gratification society of ours, how are we to deal with the rewriting of history? Where are we headed in regards to publishing an opinion that may or may not be popular with the public?

Are we working our way into Orwellian territory? (George Orwell's 1984 has proven somewhat prescient on the ideas of censorship and history, and rewriting it. Commenting on this novel wouldn't hurt, if you know it, and I'm assuming most of you have read it in high school.)

You can then take this to other extensions in other fields: how do you know if the photograph you've just witnessed is doctored or not? (I remember something about Condoleeza Rice - if I can find it, I will post it...) How are we to know what is the truth in today's CTL+ALT+DEL society? Where is the spin coming from in our information, and who is responsible in the field of "journalism" (I use the term VERY loosely) today?

This is the jumping off point - if you have any ideas that pertain to this discussion, or leap off into the great unknown with these as the starting points - feel free to glom on them, to the tune of 300 words.

Kim, I know you're having issues logging in; we'll figure it out (or I'll just send you a new invitation to a different email account).

These are due Monday at NOON - we've got a whole week to get this done (remember, your rough drafts for Paper #1 are due this Friday)...

Enjoy,

MP

Week 3: California, Here We Come

Here's a different turn from what we've been looking at. As far as the American economy goes, there is one gaping hole that rises above (sinks below?) all others when it comes to state budgets:

California.

I'm going to post a few articles about the problems CA has, and ask you to comment on these three short pieces.

The first - from the New York Times - can be found here.

The second - from Business Insider.com - has an interesting plan. Find it here.

The third - from UK website The Guardian - is the longest. It can be found here.

Three interesting opinions.

So, what say you? Should we get used to the idea of not having 50 stars on our flag anymore? Which, if any, of these ideas would you support? Or are we simply overreacting to an immediate, short term problem? Put forth your opinions and ideas in 300 words or so.

I know, I'm posting this late, but I won't be looking for this to be completed until Monday morning, so you've still got some time. My apologies for the lateness of the post -- schedules suck right now -- but I have next week's article lined up, so there won't be a huge transition next time.

Until then...good hunting.

MP

Week 2: Umberto Eco's "The Roots of Conflict"

Well, this isn't the post I threatened you with last week. But it may be a lead-in of sorts.

Meet Umberto Eco, essayist and writer and thinker. He's probably smarter than all of us put together. And he's got some interesting things to say about, well, things.

This essay was written just after September 11 (you'll find it referenced here). I want you to read this essay - it exemplifies academic writing - and find one or two items to agree or disagree with.

Keep in mind the following questions: What is Eco's purpose of this essay? What is his position? Is he able to follow through on his purpose? These questions should be able to lead you to comment on this essay, as I believe there are many threads in this essay we could discuss.

I'm hoping to have two articles for you to read next week - one from two different sides to a given topic, probably about something in the social realm. Like you, I'm wanting to get away from politics a little bit next week. In the meantime, enjoy!

-- Mr. P

Ten Years From Now

(Picture courtesy of nassaulibrary.org)


While surfing the net, poking around here and there, I ran across an article on a theme that, as I've said before, intrigues the hell out of me: Ten Years From Now. Our class doesn't have an official theme per se, but we do have some "framing" here and there for what we're going to be talking about and writing about. The more I think about the topic of Ten Years From Now, the more I like it. So I found this little article, and I'm submitting it for Exhibit A.

The article's a relatively quick read: about 10 minutes for the first skimming, and then probably another 15 for more in-depth stuff. Some things to think about when forming your response (you don't have to hit everything, or any of these; these are merely suggestions for jumping-off points):
- This article was written in 2007. How much of this has come true? How much of this was garbage that has not come true?
- In the end, this is a political advertisement. How effective is it? Did it sway you in your thinking about the coming ten (now 7) years?
- Who the hell IS Jim Cramer, anyway? Why is he important? Why does Covelli reference him?

You have 300 words to write. Agree or disagree with this author about his predictions and/or points made. You may use more recent data gleamed from the internet to back up your arguments (be sure to cite your sources if you have any).

-- MP

(please note: picking this article does NOT indicate political support for this, or any other, political position.)

Welcome to the Class Blog -- Ground Rules

All right, here's how it goes:

Each week, I'll put in a blog post posing a question or referencing some of the reading we've done. Each student responds at least once to the post, answering the question, responding to it, riffing off it, et cetera. Pretty simple.

To set you up on the blog, I will need the email address that you wish to use. If you have a Blogger account, you can use that, or create a new one if you like. Your reply to the blog can be done as a comment to the original post. If you create a new post, please put your name and the date of the post in the title, so I may be able to track these better.

Remember, each week you're responsible for 300 words on the topic at hand. Don't stretch, or try to fill -- if you give the topic proper thought, one page should not be a problem at all.

You will also see other posts and the occasional Powerpoint or video up here to give you something to think about/read/understand/see, etc.

GROUND RULES FOR POSTING:

-- No flames. The most annoying thing in the world can be "Pajama People".
-- No personal attacks. That would be BAD.
-- I don't need to reiterate that hate language won't be tolerated, but I will.
-- When making an argument, be respectful and state your position. Since this class is about learning how to make an argument, NOT how to argue, I expect civility and respect for posters at all times. Marquess of Queensberry rules, please.
-- This is an academic forum. Remember that your words are visible to other people in the world. Be yourself, keep more or less on topic, and do not be afraid to speak your mind.
-- Finally (and this may seem contrary to the above rules sometimes), feel free to state your position if I ask for it. We're going to speak about some topics that may not make everyone comfortable -- I understand that. Part of participating is learning to move a little bit outside your comfort zone. Don't be afraid. Or, be afraid, and do it anyway. Courage is nothing more than holding off fear for one more moment.

That finished...welcome to the class, everyone.

- MP