An arbitrarily objective, non-biased, non-partisan, subjectively thoughtful and scientifically-proven-to-be-effective blog about Things, Stuff and Whatever.
FB
Saturday, October 31, 2009
October 29th News-Record Column: How the internet empowers the people:
Click here to read the article: http://bit.ly/2ORXJI
Labels:
Facebook,
internet,
Media,
Media Ecology,
online,
open government,
social media,
technology,
web 2.0,
Youtube
Monday, October 26, 2009
More Information on Column
Please watch Michael Wesch's Talk "The Machine is (changing) Us here.
More links about this subject:
Media Ecology on Wikipedia
Media Ecology Association
Some further comments:
Although there is no way to answer the question of how exactly we are changing media and how in turn, our media is changing us, it is important to ask and to explore. Just because we don't have the answer doesn't mean we should not ask the question. We can learn a lot about ourselves and the way we communicate just by asking questions about media ecology and culture. I hope to cover this topic more both in my blog and in my column, so definitely keep an eye out for what I hope to be more and continued question asking about how we interact with eachother.
More links about this subject:
Media Ecology on Wikipedia
Media Ecology Association
Some further comments:
Although there is no way to answer the question of how exactly we are changing media and how in turn, our media is changing us, it is important to ask and to explore. Just because we don't have the answer doesn't mean we should not ask the question. We can learn a lot about ourselves and the way we communicate just by asking questions about media ecology and culture. I hope to cover this topic more both in my blog and in my column, so definitely keep an eye out for what I hope to be more and continued question asking about how we interact with eachother.
Labels:
Media,
Media Ecology,
Michael Wesch,
open government,
Open source,
technology,
Youtube
Sunday, October 25, 2009
WhiteHouse.gov Goes Open Source
On October 24th, the White House switched their website (whitehouse.gov) to Drupal, an open-source content management system. This will be hosted on Linux Red Hat servers.
Clearly this a big win for open source proponents as the White House has taken a large step in opening the door for more government departments on all levels to consider using open-source technology. In working towards better government transparency, the Obama Administration has made several large steps towards that goal, and this latest development in that field. There is a lot of opportunity for Government 2.0 deployments, and it is great to see Obama Administration so clearly on board with enhancing government transparency.
Read More:
http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/whitehouse-switch-drupal-opensource.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20091024/us-obama-web-site/
Clearly this a big win for open source proponents as the White House has taken a large step in opening the door for more government departments on all levels to consider using open-source technology. In working towards better government transparency, the Obama Administration has made several large steps towards that goal, and this latest development in that field. There is a lot of opportunity for Government 2.0 deployments, and it is great to see Obama Administration so clearly on board with enhancing government transparency.
Read More:
http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/whitehouse-switch-drupal-opensource.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20091024/us-obama-web-site/
Labels:
Barack Obama,
Drupal,
government,
government 2.0,
Obama,
open government,
technology
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Flu Vaccine
I just finished reading John M. Barry's Book: The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History (for my Emergency Planning & Response class at John Jay) where Barry eloquently traces the history and every detail about how around 50 million people died in the 1918 influenza pandemic. I used to to say "Why are people making such a big deal over Swine Flu?" Then I read that the flu pandemic in 1918 which was, by far, the worst pandemic in the history of the world, is the same strain of flu, H1N1, that is our so-called Swine Flu.
The issue of mandatory vaccines is a complicated one, much more complicated than either side of the debate gives it credit for. Are we facing the same possibility of a severe epidemic? Or is this possible threat being elevated by American media in love with creating fear when there need not be?
To really answer the question of whether mandatory vaccines are ethical we much first have a better understanding of the threat that we are facing and at that point we can make a thoughtful, rational and expeditious decision as to how best to balance ensuring personal liberty while protecting public safety.
The issue of mandatory vaccines is a complicated one, much more complicated than either side of the debate gives it credit for. Are we facing the same possibility of a severe epidemic? Or is this possible threat being elevated by American media in love with creating fear when there need not be?
To really answer the question of whether mandatory vaccines are ethical we much first have a better understanding of the threat that we are facing and at that point we can make a thoughtful, rational and expeditious decision as to how best to balance ensuring personal liberty while protecting public safety.
Labels:
Compulsory,
Flu Vaccine,
Influenza,
John M Barry,
Mandatory
Friday, October 9, 2009
President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Internet media especially is in a frenzy today as everyone looks to get in their word edgewise on Obama's, what turned out to be controversial, winning of a Nobel Peace Prize. The award came at a time when Obama is facing crucial decisions regarding troop levels in Afghanistan.
Many Obama supporters hail this as a landmark occasion where the international community has finally recognized Obama's ideas and vision for a more peaceful and diplomatic world where working with other nations and cultures is seen as a priority rather than a drag on international relations.
Conservatives, and a fair amount of Obama supporters, on the other hand, feel that this award was issued far too early, at best, and cannot possibly be based off of his record because nominations were due for the award almost immediately after he took office.
Others even may say this award comes at an awkward time, as a NASA rocket was just launched into the moon. (Though for peaceful purposes. For now. You're on watch Moon.)
Although both sides have a good point, it seems to have brought to light two very important points:
First, Obama has not yet delivered on his campaign promises of bringing peace, withdrawing troops and shutting down Guantanamo Bay. Granted, he has not been in office a very long time, and to make such large changes considering the past eight years requires a lot of political capital that he may not have yet. But unless he can constructively shape this healthcare debate, he may have trouble gaining that much-needed capital.
Second, conservatives and the Republican Party seem that they would rather see Obama fail than see our country succeed. That definitely doesn't apply to everyone who considers themselves right of center, but 'mainstream' American conservatism has definitely picked out Obama as a target, for whatever reasons, and celebrate his failures, like when Chicago lost out for the Olympic bid. What happened to the standing beside your President in tough times, a mantra oft-repeated during the Bush years?
My take on it? Regardless of whether or not he should have been awarded the prize now, I am confident that by the time Obama leaves office he will have demonstrated that he does indeed deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.
Many Obama supporters hail this as a landmark occasion where the international community has finally recognized Obama's ideas and vision for a more peaceful and diplomatic world where working with other nations and cultures is seen as a priority rather than a drag on international relations.
Conservatives, and a fair amount of Obama supporters, on the other hand, feel that this award was issued far too early, at best, and cannot possibly be based off of his record because nominations were due for the award almost immediately after he took office.
Others even may say this award comes at an awkward time, as a NASA rocket was just launched into the moon. (Though for peaceful purposes. For now. You're on watch Moon.)
Although both sides have a good point, it seems to have brought to light two very important points:
First, Obama has not yet delivered on his campaign promises of bringing peace, withdrawing troops and shutting down Guantanamo Bay. Granted, he has not been in office a very long time, and to make such large changes considering the past eight years requires a lot of political capital that he may not have yet. But unless he can constructively shape this healthcare debate, he may have trouble gaining that much-needed capital.
Second, conservatives and the Republican Party seem that they would rather see Obama fail than see our country succeed. That definitely doesn't apply to everyone who considers themselves right of center, but 'mainstream' American conservatism has definitely picked out Obama as a target, for whatever reasons, and celebrate his failures, like when Chicago lost out for the Olympic bid. What happened to the standing beside your President in tough times, a mantra oft-repeated during the Bush years?
My take on it? Regardless of whether or not he should have been awarded the prize now, I am confident that by the time Obama leaves office he will have demonstrated that he does indeed deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.
Labels:
Barack,
Barack Obama,
Healthcare,
NASA,
Nobel Peace Prize,
Obama,
Olympics,
Politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)