The Internet has become the apparent foundation of today’s society and with it has brought changes to how American’s live their lives. The more that technology can help us achieve, the more frequently we sit in front of the computer screen. I feel that the Internet ‘connects’ with me personally because it lets me do what I want to do when I want to do it. I can do research for class, chat with a friend, check professional sports scores, and listen to music all while I am accomplishing my goal of finishing my homework. If this strategy seems counterproductive or detrimental is the long run that is because it is. I, like so many Americans, have been trained to operate through one-dimensional thinking that the Internet permits and encourages. I don’t need to think to simultaneously accomplish all four tasks I listed above, and such lack of thinking is not only hurting America’s reading skills but its intelligence, as well. We are fascinated and choose the ever-changing information that the Internet provides over the monotonous pages of a book. By becoming dependent on the Internet for our livelihood, Americans are forfeiting the benefits that reading brings to our lives, and creating long-term problems that hurt both the individual and society. Modern America’s obsession with the Internet’s non-stop interaction and instant gratification is the cause of its decline in reading and literacy.
The Internet is a valuable tool that, for students, affords insight into the ‘real’ world that lies ahead. Setting a goal is important and the Internet now opens the world in ways never imagined; however, the nature of the Internet is having an adverse effect on today’s student fulfilling their dream. A current study from the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy asserts, “engaging in recreational (or “free voluntary reading”) and academic (or “school-related reading”) reading is critically important for students’ reading development and overall academic achievement,” yet American reading levels are steadily declining (609). For example, between “1992 and 2005, the share of proficient twelfth-grade readers dropped from forty per cent to thirty-five per cent,” which means sixty-five percent of American’s are entering college or the work force unprepared (twilight). If reading improves our cognitive abilities, our success in school, and our success in the job market, then why are Americans reading less? The Internet acts as a double-edge sword, and is abused to the point where it no longer benefits because it takes time away from other activities, like reading. Mark Bauerlein points out that “the connection between general and intellectual interest and academic performance doesn’t register,” and students' on-line habits are hurting them (54).
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
"Is Bibliophobia a Social Disease?"
I commented on cec's blog about leisure reading and it place in today's culture.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Fate of Greek Life at SMU
I wouldn’t be surprised is President Turner would like to see every fraternity on campus lose their charter. Although this is my first year at SMU, stories have been past down how relaxed the University was with social events and fraternities from even just a year ago. As far as I know, every Greek fraternity on campus has either a standing with the University or a sanction pending, with the exception of Phi Delta Theta and Beta Theta Bi, who just received their charter to re-colonize SMU this spring.
I recently joined a fraternity on campus and my eyes were opened to the political world of Greek life within SMU; however, I feel that even an outsider would see the University’s actions as a little more than coincidental. With Kappa Alpha Order being kicked off of campus this semester, and Sigma Alpha Epsilon now on Deferred Suspension it seems like SMU is push fraternities as far as they can without kicking them off, and then waiting to let them make the final mistake.
My fraternity is currently on Social Probation, which means we are not allowed host any social event on or off campus where there is alcohol served. Now, even though this affects less than half of the chapter, it has much larger consequences for the entire fraternity. Just a few weeks ago, the University stops us from hosting our spring philanthropy concert because the band was playing at a bar. Not only did the fraternity take a hit for this, but so did the organization that was anticipating our donation. This incident is not isolated: we almost had to cancel our Founder’s Day (alumni weekend) which had a dinner planned at a hotel and although we agreed not to serve wine to adults of age, but because they could go up to their rooms and drink from their mini bar.
I come from a family that is every involved in Greek life, so I know the positives the benefits that these organizations bring to men and women in their college years and for their entire lives; yet, it seems that SMU would rather take that away. I believe that fraternities are doing nothing new, and are just getting in trouble because of an administration that is cracking down. Just last year, my fraternity won an award for the Best Chapter in the Nation, so I have a hard time believing that we are doing something wrong at SMU.
I believe very strongly in what fraternities and sororities bring to a campus, to a community, and to its members’ lives, and I would have to see SMU lose its Greek community.
I recently joined a fraternity on campus and my eyes were opened to the political world of Greek life within SMU; however, I feel that even an outsider would see the University’s actions as a little more than coincidental. With Kappa Alpha Order being kicked off of campus this semester, and Sigma Alpha Epsilon now on Deferred Suspension it seems like SMU is push fraternities as far as they can without kicking them off, and then waiting to let them make the final mistake.
My fraternity is currently on Social Probation, which means we are not allowed host any social event on or off campus where there is alcohol served. Now, even though this affects less than half of the chapter, it has much larger consequences for the entire fraternity. Just a few weeks ago, the University stops us from hosting our spring philanthropy concert because the band was playing at a bar. Not only did the fraternity take a hit for this, but so did the organization that was anticipating our donation. This incident is not isolated: we almost had to cancel our Founder’s Day (alumni weekend) which had a dinner planned at a hotel and although we agreed not to serve wine to adults of age, but because they could go up to their rooms and drink from their mini bar.
I come from a family that is every involved in Greek life, so I know the positives the benefits that these organizations bring to men and women in their college years and for their entire lives; yet, it seems that SMU would rather take that away. I believe that fraternities are doing nothing new, and are just getting in trouble because of an administration that is cracking down. Just last year, my fraternity won an award for the Best Chapter in the Nation, so I have a hard time believing that we are doing something wrong at SMU.
I believe very strongly in what fraternities and sororities bring to a campus, to a community, and to its members’ lives, and I would have to see SMU lose its Greek community.
Sub-Prime Culpability and Necessary Government Actions
I commented on Chris's blog about Sub-Prime Culpability and Necessary Government Actions.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
How Safe Are We?
After recently talking with two pilots for a major airline, who are family friends, a scary reality was brought to my attention. They were discussing the fact that for today’s airlines it is not uncommon for a flight attendant’s salary to top a pilot’s. At first, I could not believe this a possibility due to the time, skill, and demand for pilots that their wages could have dropped to new lows. In the face of the current economy it is difficult for airlines to stay afloat especially after the fall they experienced post-9/11. However, due to pay cuts, wage freezes, and unions, pilots have sacrificed much more in terms of wage to keep their job than flight attendants have. The fact that the operators of aircraft have become second to flight attendants signifies a failure of airlines to provide safe transportation in exchange for higher profits.
Over break I flew on a ‘no-frills’ airline for the first time in over a decade, and I was very disappointed with the pilots’ ability to handle the airplane. As a pilot myself, I likely notice things that most travelers do not, and the pilots we much ‘sloppier’ than what I am used to out of my preferred airline. This budget-conscious airline edges the market on its ability to cut prices, however; I am afraid such measures are cutting the quality of the pilots and ultimately the passengers’ safety. I cannot think of anything more important than the safely of the traveler, and the problem extends past the pilots.
With companies’ efforts to reduce overhead it is likely to airlines cut corners in regards to safety. In response to 100 Southwest planes lacking mandatory safety inspections, the FAA made a push to step up its role in enforcing safety requirements. A month later, in April 2008, American Airlines was forced to cancel 2,500 flights because its planes were not deemed ‘airworthy.’ However, American Airlines was not alone, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Alaska Airlines, and Midwest Airlines were are required to ground planes due to a lack of accordance with safety standards that same month. In light of the American Airlines crash in the Hudson River last month, the question regarding the airlines’ concern for safety is just as relevant.
With such cutthroat competition between airlines, companies cannot afford accidents because of scaring off customers. However, revenue has become so hard to come by that all aspects of service have fallen. Fliers realize when their in-flight snack and drink are taken away, when checked bags now incur a fee, and when regular fares skyrocket, but what customers don’t see is easier to hide. I think when airlines discuss charging fares based on passengers’ weight it should become clear that they are struggling. Although I cannot prove that airlines are lowering their safety standards, I think that it is the airlines number one responsibility to keep safety as the prime concern, and given the doubts that have arisen I feel they have failed.
Over break I flew on a ‘no-frills’ airline for the first time in over a decade, and I was very disappointed with the pilots’ ability to handle the airplane. As a pilot myself, I likely notice things that most travelers do not, and the pilots we much ‘sloppier’ than what I am used to out of my preferred airline. This budget-conscious airline edges the market on its ability to cut prices, however; I am afraid such measures are cutting the quality of the pilots and ultimately the passengers’ safety. I cannot think of anything more important than the safely of the traveler, and the problem extends past the pilots.
With companies’ efforts to reduce overhead it is likely to airlines cut corners in regards to safety. In response to 100 Southwest planes lacking mandatory safety inspections, the FAA made a push to step up its role in enforcing safety requirements. A month later, in April 2008, American Airlines was forced to cancel 2,500 flights because its planes were not deemed ‘airworthy.’ However, American Airlines was not alone, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Alaska Airlines, and Midwest Airlines were are required to ground planes due to a lack of accordance with safety standards that same month. In light of the American Airlines crash in the Hudson River last month, the question regarding the airlines’ concern for safety is just as relevant.
With such cutthroat competition between airlines, companies cannot afford accidents because of scaring off customers. However, revenue has become so hard to come by that all aspects of service have fallen. Fliers realize when their in-flight snack and drink are taken away, when checked bags now incur a fee, and when regular fares skyrocket, but what customers don’t see is easier to hide. I think when airlines discuss charging fares based on passengers’ weight it should become clear that they are struggling. Although I cannot prove that airlines are lowering their safety standards, I think that it is the airlines number one responsibility to keep safety as the prime concern, and given the doubts that have arisen I feel they have failed.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
A Final Chance for Dems
It is very ironic that the Democrats and Obama have an opportunity to fix what they started: the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The entire problem started with the Community Reinvestment Act that was signed under the Carter administration. This act created an incentive for low-income borrowers, however it didn’t work too well. The Act was not much of a problem until 1995 when changes were made under the Clinton administration that forced banks to issue ‘subprime loans.’ So, the only way to turn a profit through selling more mortgages was to offer these loans to all income levels. However, under the new provisions, banks would be fined if they did not issue enough subprime loans.
This Act worked great at aiding more low-income families at giving loans because there was no money down and had variable interest rates. But when interest rates and gas prices rose, low-income houses had to stop paying bills and that meant not paying their mortgage. So, when borrowers stop paying, lenders stop lending, and the housing market collapsed. With only sellers in the market and no buyers, Fannie Mae’s guarantees became worthless and ultimately banks collapsed.
So, why are the Democrats at fault for the housing crisis and ultimately our current recession? Because before the Community Reinvestment Act house prices rose with the inflation rate, and after they skyrocketed, which in no way promoted affordable housing. On three occasions, the Republicans tried to change the CRA, but were stopped by Democrats under the pretense that low-income families would no longer receive loans. Under further examination, numerous ties and connections arise between Obama and Fannie Mae officers who ultimately resigned upon the subprime mortgage crisis. Obama, himself, has even sued banks for not issuing enough loans. So, if Obama is one of the biggest antagonists of our current problem that has lead to a global downturn, why is he in office?
In the end, the problem did not arise through free markets, poor people not paying their debts, or even deregulation, but bad government regulation and exterior motives of the people in power.
This Act worked great at aiding more low-income families at giving loans because there was no money down and had variable interest rates. But when interest rates and gas prices rose, low-income houses had to stop paying bills and that meant not paying their mortgage. So, when borrowers stop paying, lenders stop lending, and the housing market collapsed. With only sellers in the market and no buyers, Fannie Mae’s guarantees became worthless and ultimately banks collapsed.
So, why are the Democrats at fault for the housing crisis and ultimately our current recession? Because before the Community Reinvestment Act house prices rose with the inflation rate, and after they skyrocketed, which in no way promoted affordable housing. On three occasions, the Republicans tried to change the CRA, but were stopped by Democrats under the pretense that low-income families would no longer receive loans. Under further examination, numerous ties and connections arise between Obama and Fannie Mae officers who ultimately resigned upon the subprime mortgage crisis. Obama, himself, has even sued banks for not issuing enough loans. So, if Obama is one of the biggest antagonists of our current problem that has lead to a global downturn, why is he in office?
In the end, the problem did not arise through free markets, poor people not paying their debts, or even deregulation, but bad government regulation and exterior motives of the people in power.
Pony Pride
When I think about SMU’s sports team I feel upset that we do not have the same prestige or tradition as some of our rivals do. I realize that we are a smaller school than most, but I don’t think that is an appropriate excuse. I do take into consideration the death penalty that the football program received, but I think a school like SMU has the potential to truly excel on the athletic fields.
How good our teams are is not as big of problem issue as our apparent lack of school spirit for our teams. I attended football games in the fall, and it seemed to me that football games are only an excuse to Boulevard and not actually come together to support our team. The Boulevard receives a much better turn out of the student body than the football game does, and I really hope that changes. I think Boulevarding is great, however I believe it is important that we start to fill Ford Stadium because passion for our school and our teams will only leave SMU a better place. I recently attend a basketball game, and needless to say, the turnout was very much reminiscent of a typical Saturday at Ford Stadium.
I will agree that it is easier to draw people to a sporting event when the teams are very successful, but from an athlete’s perspective fans can often win games for a team due to their intensity and enthusiasm. With the hopeful rise to prominence of our football and basketball teams the future of SMU’s student involvement in athletics look optimistic, and hopefully have positive consequences for school spirit.
How good our teams are is not as big of problem issue as our apparent lack of school spirit for our teams. I attended football games in the fall, and it seemed to me that football games are only an excuse to Boulevard and not actually come together to support our team. The Boulevard receives a much better turn out of the student body than the football game does, and I really hope that changes. I think Boulevarding is great, however I believe it is important that we start to fill Ford Stadium because passion for our school and our teams will only leave SMU a better place. I recently attend a basketball game, and needless to say, the turnout was very much reminiscent of a typical Saturday at Ford Stadium.
I will agree that it is easier to draw people to a sporting event when the teams are very successful, but from an athlete’s perspective fans can often win games for a team due to their intensity and enthusiasm. With the hopeful rise to prominence of our football and basketball teams the future of SMU’s student involvement in athletics look optimistic, and hopefully have positive consequences for school spirit.
Where does the time go?
Authors like Lee Siegel and Steven Johnson argue the pluses and negatives of the technology boom and the Internet on our society and intelligence, but neither seems to touch on the time commitment that Internet activity, like blogging, merit. To truly benefit from blogging or Internet interaction, I feel it is insufficient to solely worry about your own blog. Instead, the majority of one’s time should be spent on reading other blogs and searching through clicking on links. However, as I just browsed around reading other people’s blogs I failed to realize I spent 25 minutes just skimming random posts. For me, getting sucked into mindless, unproductive activates occurs multiple times a day, and I often use ‘doing nothing’ on the Internet to kill time.
I just wonder how much more schoolwork or how much more productive I could be if I totaled up all my unproductive time, and accomplished things I had pushed back. I realize that jumping from link to link is mentally stimulating because one is surrounding themselves with diverse information, but is 30 minutes of skimming blogs really worth my time? Most of the time, the posts are just someone’s opinion that is thrown at us with the assumption that it is valuable knowledge.
This issue of time does not just apply to blogging, but to most of the new forms of technology that are engrained in everyday American culture. There is no doubting that my generation spends our time differently than my parents generation, however I think it’s too early to tell the effects of such a culture shift. In theory, our productive it may be so much higher now that we have time to kill because we can accomplish the same amount today that took twice the time 30 years ago. Either way, the Internet can act as a double edge-sword that has something to offer everyone. I hate to formulate an opinion about blogging before I have ample exposure, but I want to give it a fair shot before I dismiss it because of the time requirement.
I just wonder how much more schoolwork or how much more productive I could be if I totaled up all my unproductive time, and accomplished things I had pushed back. I realize that jumping from link to link is mentally stimulating because one is surrounding themselves with diverse information, but is 30 minutes of skimming blogs really worth my time? Most of the time, the posts are just someone’s opinion that is thrown at us with the assumption that it is valuable knowledge.
This issue of time does not just apply to blogging, but to most of the new forms of technology that are engrained in everyday American culture. There is no doubting that my generation spends our time differently than my parents generation, however I think it’s too early to tell the effects of such a culture shift. In theory, our productive it may be so much higher now that we have time to kill because we can accomplish the same amount today that took twice the time 30 years ago. Either way, the Internet can act as a double edge-sword that has something to offer everyone. I hate to formulate an opinion about blogging before I have ample exposure, but I want to give it a fair shot before I dismiss it because of the time requirement.
Are we really stimulating?
I think its safe to say that the current state of the economy is most American’s number one concern, and it is certain the Obama administration’s greatest task at hand. With every fiscal and monetary economic tool at work, why isn’t this recession turning around? American’s are scared and short for liquid capital, and I think the new Obama stimulus package will not have the desired effect he wants it to and we will sink ourselves into a bigger deficit.
The taxpayer ultimately funds whatever government spends, so why would someone spend more money now when they have to pay higher taxes later. The Ricardian Equivalence Proposition is the idea that a tax cut or more money in a consumer’s pocket will not boost Consumption or GDP. This assumption assumes that the individual realizes the benefit of having more money now will offset with having less in the future, so they do not change their spending habits. If this is true, then why do we keep drafting up stimulus packages when this first one never even worked?
I think the government needs to take a step back and assess their role in this problem. The Federal Reserve has about done as much as they can, so it is the fiscal policy that will have to save this economy. Given the almost complete shift to a Keynesian approach, our government has to stimulate demand. Putting money into American’s hands, who already have mounting debt, only soaks up their own balance sheets, and does not get pumped into the economy. This same dilemma is happening with banks and large corporations who lend money and contribute to large purchases of capital stock, respectively. Right now there is no demand and thus no need for supply and employment, and that needs to change very soon.
I am not suggesting that Obama should create government programs similar to FDR, but government spending has to put people to work. If unemployment rising, there are less people with money, which means they will be buying less, and ultimately higher unemployment numbers. So, ironic as it is, I think we need temporary regulation in order to get us back to the free market we know and love. For the invisible hand to take over again, the money were spending has to put specifically guided into the economy or else we will continue to spin our wheels in this recession.
The taxpayer ultimately funds whatever government spends, so why would someone spend more money now when they have to pay higher taxes later. The Ricardian Equivalence Proposition is the idea that a tax cut or more money in a consumer’s pocket will not boost Consumption or GDP. This assumption assumes that the individual realizes the benefit of having more money now will offset with having less in the future, so they do not change their spending habits. If this is true, then why do we keep drafting up stimulus packages when this first one never even worked?
I think the government needs to take a step back and assess their role in this problem. The Federal Reserve has about done as much as they can, so it is the fiscal policy that will have to save this economy. Given the almost complete shift to a Keynesian approach, our government has to stimulate demand. Putting money into American’s hands, who already have mounting debt, only soaks up their own balance sheets, and does not get pumped into the economy. This same dilemma is happening with banks and large corporations who lend money and contribute to large purchases of capital stock, respectively. Right now there is no demand and thus no need for supply and employment, and that needs to change very soon.
I am not suggesting that Obama should create government programs similar to FDR, but government spending has to put people to work. If unemployment rising, there are less people with money, which means they will be buying less, and ultimately higher unemployment numbers. So, ironic as it is, I think we need temporary regulation in order to get us back to the free market we know and love. For the invisible hand to take over again, the money were spending has to put specifically guided into the economy or else we will continue to spin our wheels in this recession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)