The Lost City of Z

I just finished a wonderful non-fiction book entitled The lost City of Z by David Grann (Doubleday, 2005). It is a tale of the long-time search for the lost city of Z and exploration in the Brazilian Amazon forest. The well-written story is replete with archaeological, historical, personal as well as psychological concepts and reads like an exciting fictionalized adventure tale. Like most truly good stories, it left me thirsting for more.

Did you know that the Amazon may have given birth to a large, advanced civilization that rivals ancient Egypt? I am wondering if the Amazonian civilaization is connected to African civilizations that were one when the two continents were connected during the pangaea.

Model Blogger

Hooray! Finally there is someone who has the money and gumption to fight on-line meanies! According to CNN (8/25/09), Rosemary Port wrote nasty comments about model, Liskula Cohen, in her blog entitled, "Skanks in NY". Yuck. A court ruled that Liskula had the right to find the name of her attacker because the comments were libelous. Google was served an order to identify Rosemary.

Now, Rosemary is suing Google for releasing her name on the grounds that on-line blogging is a private forum and not meant for public viewing. Get real girlie, the Internet is nothing but public. It is designed to meet the informational needs of people across the globe.

IN MY OPINION, anyone who purposely slams another on-line, or posts a potentially damaging visual image is guilty of libel. Just because you "invite" friends to view a blog does not mean one can truly expect privacy. Furthermore, I was wondering what Rosemary's intentions were for this negatively named blog? For some reason I don't think it was meant to be complimentary.

We Americans have been trying to qualify this issue since we made freedom of speech an American right. Various court cases have deemed that a person cannot purposely publicize false and defamatory comments, cannot report tidbits not backed up by evidence or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I believe posting "skank" in a blog is comparable to screaming fire in a crowded theater. Furthermore, One can expect privacy on-line if they are composing an e-mail that is addressed to only one or two people. However, one can never expect blogs, websites, face book, twitter and other web 2.0 tools to be fully private.

The cyber bullying has to stop! It is damaging to reputations and emotional states and is counterproductive. There is no practical reason for it, so why do it?

Compassion?????

Abdelbeset Ali Mohmen al Megrahi was recently released by Scottish Authorities on the grounds that the Scottish "justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion [be] available" (CNN 8/22/09). I have a question, Did al Megrahi have compassion for the people on the plane he destroyed? Did he give them a few extra months to live? Did he have compassion to the relatives of the deceased and give them a compassionate stay to spend time with their cherished ones?

I do not believe in vengeance. However, I do believe in justice. Sometimes there are secret deals are made that are not made public. I only hope that if a secret deal was made, other people have been spared the horrors of suddenly losing family and friends to terrorist activities. I could reluctantly accept al Megrahi's release under those conditions.

However, by releasing the beast, Scotland has undermined the validity of the Western World's combined Justice systems. The USA, England, France and our allies are now viewed as laughing stocks in terrorist hot spots. It's similar to the teacher who states, "If you throw that spit ball, I am going to give you detention". When the recalcitrant student arrives to serve his detention time, the teacher tells him , "never mind, go home". The student has learned that his ill intentioned deed is not really so bad and is likely to try it again.

This is common sense. There has to be more to this story.

Too Much Information?

People are posting their labor and birth experiences via twitter, facebook and their blogs. Is this a case of TMI?

Let's be practical. A digital communicator has to make a personal decision whether or not they want to view/read a certain piece. O.K. If you don't want to see/read it, don't click. There, that was easy.

Then, a digital communicator has to make a decision whether or not they want to share a piece of information. If it is personal, it is up to them whether or not they want other people to see it. It is their decision. If you don't want to share it with the world, don't. There, that was easy.

Furthermore, isolation is a form of punishment. Correctional facilities consider solitary confinement as a punitive action. In today's world when we are so busy and see people but rarely talk about our own hopes, dreams and feelings, blogs, twitter and other social networking sites are a way to allay loneliness and isolation. I cheer on the folks who choose to broadcast their beautiful childbirth experiences. That is something natural and beautiful and should not be considered sacrosanct. Also, if you need an outlet to voice your feelings, blog, tweet and publish. I know, it is therapeutic.

Yes, I believe some people may be going to far with personal information but I also believe we are nascent digital communicators. We will evolve and learn some things should be kept private. If you don't like their/my opinions/personal experiences, click the X in the upper right corner of your screen.

For Better or Worse

Is your economic situation better or worse than last year? I'm having a lot of trouble answering that question. Luckily, my husband and I still have our jobs and even my teenage daughter was able to procure employment for the summer. In that aspect, our situation is the same as it's always been. We are solvent but, a small setback could lead to a total annihilation of our small savings and shrinking retirement funds. It's a good thing we are adrenaline junkies and like living on the edge.

We have three cars. Two bit the dust in the past month. (P.S. We just paid off all of our vehicles a few months ago.) One is not salvageable so we decided to try the cash for clunkers deal. My husband went to the GM dealer and found a nice van that he could use. It's new, nothing special or added to bring up the price so I thought it would be affordable. The darn thing was $29,500!! I almost passed out in the parking lot. However, GM took off a few thousand for this, a few thousand for that and even gave us money for the clunker! We got $3500.00 for cash for clunkers which brought the price to just over $20,000. Good Deal! I was happy. I will be even happier in another 6 years when it is paid off.

I think the cash for clunkers plan should have been instituted before our spectacular government gave the auto industry their big handout. The cash for clunkers promotes business for the GM Corporation but also the auto dealers, thereby creating revenue for local governments, and benefitting the citizenry so we can purchase new vehicles and the environment by creating a desire and means for obtaining fuel efficient vehicles. I don't know if you know this, but the $4500.00 is available when you buy a vehicle that is a certain percentage more fuel efficient than the one that you have. GM has a web page to figure out if your present car and the one you want to purchase are eligible. Go to http://www.gm.com/cash-for-clunkers to see if the car you want and the car you have are eligible and how much you will receive. The more fuel efficient the car purchased is, the more money you get. I highly recommend a new GM car. Do your civic duty (if you can) and support the American economy!

I guess we are better off than a year ago because last summer we could not afford a $29,500 car.

Healthcare Reform Bill

I have been researching information about the healthcare (excuse me, the health reform) bill. First, it is difficult to get information that is not infused with opinion, and much misinformation. For example, I googled pros and cons for health care bill and was led to ask.com. A person asked that very question and was given (the #1 answer) that stated there were no benefits. obviously a skewed, opinionated reply. AARP published an article about the bill and stated that illegal immigrants would be covered by the bill. This is absolutely untrue! Those were the first two sources I looked at. Not good odds.

I am watching several news stations and each show people at town hall events screaming their displeasure about the bill. They are loud, misinformed and reluctant to listen to any real information. They voice their OPINION and then scream that they are leaving. I am curious, do they have insurance? I can bet that if their child was sick and, they did not have insurance, their opinion would be very different. They should focus on the FACT that 1/6 people in the United States does not have healthcare.

The bill is a CHOICE for the American people. Right now, when someone loses their job they do not have the choice to go to the doctor or hospital without risking their investments such as their home or children's college education. The bill does NOT force people to accept the government insurance. Furthermore, if it is less expensive than the highly profitable insurance companies, it may bring down the cost of those policies. currently, the health insurance companies (motivated by profits) control our health care. It is a fact of life. Someone else will be controlling the health care of Americans. Would you rather have a private company who is solely motivated by profits to control your choices or have the CHOICE of an ADDITIONAL plan controlled by the government who must answer to voters. Americans currently do not have any choice. We can only get insurance from for-profit-only companies. Free will is nothing without choice. I want choice. I agree that this bill needs some tweaking. However, the tweaking does not involve eliminating the option of a government plan.

I love the conflict but hate the animosity and provincial attitudes. However, there are rules for holding a controlled meeting where everyone is allowed to voice their opinion and then an answer delivered. Respect and a common appreciation for other's rights to voice their opinion is common sense. That is democracy. Democracy is not screaming and disrupting meetings so the facts and opinions cannot be heard.
Some say this contention is not right. We forget that in 1789 there was this same contention when our forefathers were tryng to determine the form of government we would follow for the life of our new country. The federalist/anti-federalist argument is legendary and had a far-reacing impact on the United States of America, just like the health care reform bill.

Why not Write a Paper, Watch TV, Take a Nap while Driving

Heidi Collins just asked Americans to respond about the proposed federal law to ban texting while driving.

OMG! I can't believe we are so stupid as to not realize that texting and driving are incompatible. Many states, including my New York state have already banned talking on the cell phone while driving. Is texting less distracting? Furthermore, would we watch a TV program, write a term paper, or take a nap while driving? What's next, a law banning breathing while under water without scuba equipment?

My video made using animoto.com

Practical Matters

Welcome to my new personal blog. I am a graduate students working on my childhood education/special education degree. I will be writing about a variety of topics, especially education and the news. It seems that many conflicts today could be eliminated if we could just think in practical terms.

One example presented itself this morning as I watched CNN . The show hosts were discussing the unreliability of digital news. They spoke to anchors from TMZ, a celebrity news/gossip/entertainment website/news show. http://www.tmz.com/ The CNN host pointed out that digital news is criticized for being unreliable because their sources are not verifiable. Apparently, TMZ uses blogs, twitter and other digital information to gain information for their reports. (Hey, didn't CNN do that with the election riots in Iran?) . TMZ retaliated with the valid point that some major networks have used "anonymous sources" and have reported false information in the past. They also stated they do not report information that comes from only one source and they do verify what others see/hear.

Here's the practical part. The news and the world has changed with the onset of digital information and communication. It used to be that when Walter Cronkite said something, it was taken as fact. Now, everyone is a reporter but not everyone is a reliable source. Now, whether the news comes from a neighbor talking over the back fence, a major network news show, a respected newspaper or a website, one has to evaluate that information. We have to think about various aspects:
1. The source, do they have a motive for reporting the way they did.?
2. Where did they get their information?

3. Is the same information similarly reported elsewhere.
4. Don't believe everything you see or hear.

The world is different and so is the way we get and evaluate our news. We have to be practical. No one is a reliable source of information anymore. Really critically think about what you see and hear.