Recently in politics Category
i am in a unique position of being surrounded by a lot of different people on any given day. i would argue that most people in my profession are. although, if you teach k-12, most of the people you are around, can't vote. but where i am, pretty much, the majority can vote.
one of the fascinating things is that i see and hear and speak to and talk with and listen to a wide... let me rephrase that... WIDE spectrum of political and religious beliefs. you are a fool if you think that everyone who works for or at a university is liberal and an atheist. that is seriously NOT THE CASE.
i have plenty of colleagues who are socially and politically conservative. i have plenty who are socially and politically liberal. i have some who are socially conservative but politically liberal and some who are socially liberal and politically conservative. there is a mix. and for everyone of those, i encounter fifteen students who have the same thoughts.
this election brought out a lot of passion in people. it got people talking. it got people on BOTH sides to act like fools and yell and scream at others (which i do not approve of and do not tolerate at all). it brought out condescension on both sides and still is bringing it out.
one of the things that i see now, is that same fear and condescension i saw eight and four years ago. on those two elections, a man was elected president of the united states. the opposite side sat fearful and was condescending of what would happen. and i see that now again today. this does not work. this has never worked. this only creates problems.
i believe in being critical. i believe in questioning our leaders. i believe in picketing and writing letters. i believe in challenging authority. but condescension and throwing hands up in the air and assuming the worst does not work. everyone has the right to complain, but the other attitude only promotes hatred and shuts down paths of communication. we don't all have to agree all the time. that would be boring. but we should listen to each other. we should find common ground to work with. we should try to progress and move forward and give everything a chance.
and for those who argue we don't need a change, by sheer definition of our political system, the fact that we are required to have a new president after two terms means that we NEED a change. it is required. no matter a person's voting record, no matter a person's political beliefs, no matter a person's past experience, a new president will always bring change of some sort. so, give change with this person a chance. as he asks of you, go out and volunteer, help, be a part of it, criticize, question. don't try to change the world, be the change you want to see in the world.
talk to people. discuss. argue. but respect the difference. afterall, we all have being different in common.
one of the fascinating things is that i see and hear and speak to and talk with and listen to a wide... let me rephrase that... WIDE spectrum of political and religious beliefs. you are a fool if you think that everyone who works for or at a university is liberal and an atheist. that is seriously NOT THE CASE.
i have plenty of colleagues who are socially and politically conservative. i have plenty who are socially and politically liberal. i have some who are socially conservative but politically liberal and some who are socially liberal and politically conservative. there is a mix. and for everyone of those, i encounter fifteen students who have the same thoughts.
this election brought out a lot of passion in people. it got people talking. it got people on BOTH sides to act like fools and yell and scream at others (which i do not approve of and do not tolerate at all). it brought out condescension on both sides and still is bringing it out.
one of the things that i see now, is that same fear and condescension i saw eight and four years ago. on those two elections, a man was elected president of the united states. the opposite side sat fearful and was condescending of what would happen. and i see that now again today. this does not work. this has never worked. this only creates problems.
i believe in being critical. i believe in questioning our leaders. i believe in picketing and writing letters. i believe in challenging authority. but condescension and throwing hands up in the air and assuming the worst does not work. everyone has the right to complain, but the other attitude only promotes hatred and shuts down paths of communication. we don't all have to agree all the time. that would be boring. but we should listen to each other. we should find common ground to work with. we should try to progress and move forward and give everything a chance.
and for those who argue we don't need a change, by sheer definition of our political system, the fact that we are required to have a new president after two terms means that we NEED a change. it is required. no matter a person's voting record, no matter a person's political beliefs, no matter a person's past experience, a new president will always bring change of some sort. so, give change with this person a chance. as he asks of you, go out and volunteer, help, be a part of it, criticize, question. don't try to change the world, be the change you want to see in the world.
talk to people. discuss. argue. but respect the difference. afterall, we all have being different in common.
this is not a political post... in one sense.
today, i did an interesting experiment in the concept of differentiation and democracy. i gave my students a choice in order to enable them to decide which option was in their best interest.
background information: the midterm is monday and i gave them the choice to do it in class, fifty minutes, no notes, not resources, no help. or they can take it home, use resources, notes, dictionaries, etc. with the understanding that i would expect more detail and information in that format.
the class of course approached this as if it would come to a vote and then the majority ruled. i, instead, explained that this was not going to be a democracy of majority rule, but instead where everyone was represented and they could choose what was in their own best interest... aka each student chose for herself and had "representation".
chaos ensued. the debate became animated. the issues were questioned. discussion of the pros/cons. decisions were not made. more discussion. each student now had to decide what was in her favor and what was not. chaos. stress and questions about format and expectations.
stress about what they had to do when. on the one hand, in-class meant that they had to study this weekend to prepare. they had to work now. give this weekend up. on the other, they could have the weekend and take it home, but it would require more work later, and over a longer period of time. more chaos. more animation.
one student told me that she could not live in a world with such freedom, that i needed to decide for her, that this was just too much for her to deal with. another struggled with what he wanted versus what was in his immediate best interest. he wanted to do the take-home but he didn't have time with other midterms and papers.
in the end, they will email me their choices, and i will give you the statistical breakdown of their choice. overall, i am very fascinated by their reaction to choice. that they prefer a majority rules or a dictatorship over deciding for themselves. i honestly believe that they will ultimately prefer this to the other two options.
today, i did an interesting experiment in the concept of differentiation and democracy. i gave my students a choice in order to enable them to decide which option was in their best interest.
background information: the midterm is monday and i gave them the choice to do it in class, fifty minutes, no notes, not resources, no help. or they can take it home, use resources, notes, dictionaries, etc. with the understanding that i would expect more detail and information in that format.
the class of course approached this as if it would come to a vote and then the majority ruled. i, instead, explained that this was not going to be a democracy of majority rule, but instead where everyone was represented and they could choose what was in their own best interest... aka each student chose for herself and had "representation".
chaos ensued. the debate became animated. the issues were questioned. discussion of the pros/cons. decisions were not made. more discussion. each student now had to decide what was in her favor and what was not. chaos. stress and questions about format and expectations.
stress about what they had to do when. on the one hand, in-class meant that they had to study this weekend to prepare. they had to work now. give this weekend up. on the other, they could have the weekend and take it home, but it would require more work later, and over a longer period of time. more chaos. more animation.
one student told me that she could not live in a world with such freedom, that i needed to decide for her, that this was just too much for her to deal with. another struggled with what he wanted versus what was in his immediate best interest. he wanted to do the take-home but he didn't have time with other midterms and papers.
in the end, they will email me their choices, and i will give you the statistical breakdown of their choice. overall, i am very fascinated by their reaction to choice. that they prefer a majority rules or a dictatorship over deciding for themselves. i honestly believe that they will ultimately prefer this to the other two options.
i know i have gone political here, but d@mn, i love matt damon and he is so right!
i won't lie, i am a liberal. rhetoric is one of the most fascinating things to me, on both sides. and i am quick to laugh at the inconsistencies of any politician, etc... but i love it when one side attacks another for one thing and then does not see the GREAT BIG MONSTROUS HOLE in their own argument...
thank you daily show!
thank you daily show!
