Volunteerism in politics.

Volunteering in politics has taken a huge change in the last few years. With the rise of blogs, people that volunteer and are active in campaigns are able to discuss ideas and they are given more of a voice. Interestingly, there are those in the party establishment of both parties that feel that volunteers should only have a role in stuffing envelopes and marching in parades, but should not have a voice to express their ideas. It at least seems this way. I have noticed a disinterest in politics among many regular people. Volunteers are regular people too. If you want people to vote and to participate in the process, you need to give them a voice to express their ideas and their news to the candidates. It kind of upsets me that some people within the party establishments want to treat us volunteers and bloggers like minions. Furthermore, it seems that these people also feel that if it isn't "mathematically" possible to win in certain races, we shouldn't compete. This is a losing and defeatist attitude. As someone with a Mathematics degree myself, I know that there are so many variables that go into running races that it is difficult to predict how it will come out, with the exception of polling and that is iffy. Furthermore, if you didn't run a Democrat in a more Republican area, where they "cannot win", then the Democrats in the area will feel abandoned and will not vote for races where the Democrat can win. If they don't have someone running for state house or congress, then the Dems there won't turn out to vote for a Governor, Senator or a President. This is all about outreach. Giving people access and giving them a voice. It is even about giving them experience with politics. This is why I like blogs, the expanded role of volunteerism and the "50 state strategy" approach to campaigning. The Democrats need to continue down this path as a party if we have any hope of continuing to function as a unit.

Greed is BAD!!!!!

I remember watching the movie "Wall Street" in the past. It is a very good movie, if you haven't seen it. The movie was released in 1987, during the Reagan years, when it seemed that everybody was focused on making more money. In the movie, a millinaire and the main antagonist of the story Gordon Gekko talks to a group of shareholders in a paper company how Greed is good.

Here's a snippet:

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, is that Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms - greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind. "

Maybe one could make a case for what he says here. However, what I have observed and learned in recent time, this couldn't be further from the truth. I have seen "An Inconvenient Truth" recently. It is interesting when one Mr. Al Gore talks about how China and India among other industrialized have advanced beyond America in terms of where they get their energy from and how they use it. Many of these industrialized nations are getting a decent percentage of their energy from things other than petroleum. In America, it is a cop out, because it is too expensive. According to the oil and energy executives. Of course, these groups have a stake in things staying the same. In their minds, it is more lucrative in the short term for them to continue to use Oil to heat people's homes and fuel their cars. Thanks to this, America runs the risk of becoming a second rate power. Furthermore, we have a country that is polluting more of its air and wrecking its environment. Also, creating more disease for people. At least in the long run. It bugs me that summers these days seem hotter than they did 15 years ago. In which case we use more energy than before. Using more oil, until we have very little left. What then? War? For oil? Why? Why do we need this?


Another interesting thing I have been reading that has added fuel to my fire against greed has been a post from Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/19/21267/6531

Let's take a look at Outsourcing for a moment. Many Middle Class Americans have been losing their jobs due to this. It is sick the way the middle class is getting squeezed by this. All because companies what to offshore jobs to India and China just to protect their bottom lines. Isn't this a little short sighted? Instead of being able to help America and their company claim leadership and most likely make more money in the long term, they concentrate on the short term. So, instead of using our skills as Americans, we teach people from India and China to do it. Then they just improve upon what we do. They can start up their own companies, based on this information, to directly compete with ours. They could get around the patent rights of CEO's who were not really thinking of their company's interest to begin with and outmanuver us. Leaving us with very high unemployment and no original ideas because our competitors have already improved upon those ideas. I doubt America or even these CEO's will benefit from this. Nobody in America will. So, how is Greed good?

It is important for America to not have Greed, but have desire. Now, Greed is a form of desire, but desire is a more broad term. Where Mr. Gekko in the quote above describes Greed, I see it as a desire. A desire to impove ourselves and the world. While Greed is the desire for financial improvement, the more broad form of desire has to do with general improvement. This is what America, in all its complacency these days lacks. It is what America needs. It is what will get this country and all our people out of the moral, fiscal and economical crisis that we find ourselves in today. Desire is the key to the future. True desire for change. Not the lust for money. Desire Works.

Campaigning for a Congressional Candidate.

This morning I went down to Parker, Colorado to march for Democratic Congressional Candiate Bill Winter who is running for Congressional District 6. This district has been a conservative stronghold. Parker is probably one of the most conservative parts of that district. Some would call that area and even the district NIMBY. Though, many people seem to be getting tired of the current Congressman Tom Tancredo. While Tancredo has focused on a single issue of bashing Immigrants, Winter wants to make a change. I live and his district and have had the pleasure of meeting him many times before and during his candidacy. He is a solid guy. He is like Paul Hackett. He speaks his mind and is not afraid to call bullshit when he sees it. However, he is positive and wants to run on a message of hope. I respect him for his response when I asked him the question "How do you feel about the reauthorization of the Patriot Act?" To which Mr. Winter said "I don't see why we voted for it in the first place in any form". Thank you Bill!!! It will be an honor for me to vote for him in November.

As for the parade, Mr. Winter wanted to keep it all positive. The fact is, it was very gutsy to make a showing there. There were a lot of us in the parade. Strength in numbers. I remember campaigning in 2004. We even dealt with hostility from Republicans almost anywhere. Even in more Democratic areas. In 2006, that is quite a different story. Those that did anything cheered for us. Our contingent was flanked by a donkey on either side of us. Yes, a real donkey. Or should I say real donkeys. But it was good for us to walk through "hostile territory" on a parade route. Bill Winter is dead even in the district with Tancredo. This is one of the first times I felt optimistic about Douglas County Colorado. Mr. Winter has my confidence and my vote. Though the vote goes without saying. I look forward to volunteering for Mr. Winter many more times before this is over and hope to see him in congress come 2007.

The Inconvenient Truth.

Last night, I went to the Mayan Theater in Downtown Denver to see Former Vice-President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth". It was an excellent film. I have always considered myself environmental. I feel that for all practical reasons we need to move ourselves to more renewable sources of energy. Ones that are not harmful to the environment. But the science that Mr. Gore goes into to explain Global warming is both interesting and disturbing. Sadly, I can notice some of the effects. There is a part of me that wonders if the summers are really getting hotter or is it just my imagination. In the film Mr. Gore stated that the 10 hottest years have occurred from 1990 onwards. 2005 was the hottest one yet. It is disturbing as I have noticed the fact that we have had many more days during the late spring and summer that were over 90 degrees and over 100 degrees. In Colorado, the better part of the last 2 or 3 weeks have seen days with highs over 90 degrees. A lot of the science surrounding the development of Hurricaine Katrina and many of the other hurricaines that have hit the United States in 2004 and 2005 have to do with global warming, such as the warmer air and water increasing the wind velocity of the hurricaines. It is very frightening to think about the situation that we are in. We have people that outright dismiss Global Warming as almost an "old wive's tale" if you will. They say that the Al Gore is not necessarily accurate when it comes to Global Warming. Scientists have stated that Gore got it right. Check this Daily Kos thread here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/10/132852/393


What concerns me is that not just Mr. Gore, but other people have been talking about Global Warming and other environmental issues for a very long time. President Jimmy Carter warned us of the dangers of petroleum. Partly spurred by the 1979 Gas Crisis, he even tried to start moving the US to renewable energy. He put solar panels on the White house. They got taken down when Reagan took office. It is sad. There was so much hope 30 years ago. There still is now. I fear that if we don't act on it soon it WILL be too late. Although Mr. Gore said that we have time. That gives me a little releif. However people are still dying and getting sick from diseases related to radiation. There is an article about Denver's streets being paved with radium. With that they talk about making Adams County Colorado into a potential dumping ground. http://www.soapblox.net/colorado/showDiary.do?diaryId=1655


People live there. They would be affected by this mess. I have been listening to a song in my car that says it all perfectly:

Gary Moore Victims Of The Future

Searching each day for the answers, watching our hopes disappear. Set on a course for disaster, living our lives in fear. Our leaders leave us in confusion. For them there's only one solution. Caught in the fight for survival, trapped with our backs to the wall. Are we just lambs to the slaughter, who wait for the axe to fall? Our world is headed for destruction. Our fate is in the hands of fools. Shadows of the past, victims of the future. How long will it last? Victims of the future? Into the verbal arena, armed with the lies that they tell. They're fighting for world domination, backed by the weapons of hell. Is there no end to all this madness? Is there no hope for us at all? Shadows of the past, victims of the future. How long will it last? Victims of the future. Shadows of the past, victims of the future. How long will it last? Victims of the future. Yeah. Shadows of the past, victims of the future. How long will it last? Victims of the future. Shadows of the past, victims of the future. How long will it last? Victims of the future. Victims of the future. Victims of the future. Victims of the future. Victims of the future. Yeah.

That was Gary Moore, Victims of the Future. It doesn't have to be this way. There is still hope and time. But we need to act soon. As for Al Gore, thank you very much for a great documentary. If you decide to run for President again in 2008 I'll pull for you. Just be like you were in this documentary. Be passionate and funny and you can take your rightful place.

Big Brother in the classroom?

In this time of high emotion concerning our civil liberties and Big Brother intruding into our lives, we have a congressional candidate for Colorado's 7th Congressional district who has views that many would also consider to be big brother. Enter Herb Rubenstein, one of three Democratic candidates for Congress in Colorado's 7th Congressional District. Herb entered the race in June of 2005 and moved here from Washington DC in order to run for the seat. Before this, Herb was CEO of a consulting firm called "Growth Strategies, Inc." I am not writing this blog in order to gun for Mr. Rubenstein, but I felt that one of his more questionable positions need some scrutiny, as well as some of the logic that goes into them.

One of the things that he wants to do is put internet cameras in classrooms in school. The main expressed reason is for parental involvement. I will certainly not debate that parents should be engaged in the education of their children. Parents have the right to know what their children are doing at school. While that is true, there are pitfalls to having internet cameras in classrooms. Mr. Rubenstein writes in his article about cameras in classrooms:

"The “observation” of the teachers and students via internet based cameras will be unobtrusive. Neither teachers nor students should be doing anything in the classroom and in extracurricular activities that they do not want observed by parents and administrators in any event."

This sounds fine, until you delve into what could be considered things you don't want parents or administrators to see. Now, there are a number of things that are obviously stupid to do, especially in the classroom, however, especially in this day in age, one does not have to do something wrong in order to catch someone's ire. In this case, parents and administrators. You just would have to do something that a spectator doesn't like. Something that could be taken out of context. How could things be taken out of context? Well one thing to consider is the practicality of parents watching their entire kid's class every day. Maybe as it is happening, or maybe after the fact. The thing is, it isn't very practical. Most parents work 40 hours a week. They are not going to have the time to view everything their kid does in school. Even if they do, they would easily get bored. So, if they were to sift through the video feed after the fact and pick up on an exchange between their kid and a teacher, that didn't look good, they might draw their own conclusions and come into conflict with the teacher because they didn't like what the teacher had to say. Not because what the teacher said was wrong, but simply because they didn't like it. Administrators have the same problem too. Not enough time and too many classes to watch. But if either parents or administrators decided to get involved because they didn't like something that the teacher did, even if it wasn't really wrong could undermine the teacher's authority with their students. The fact is, teaching is a very hard job, in part because of the politics that teachers have to deal with from parents and administrators. This is a way that having cameras in classrooms could generate conflict. Furthermore, if there was a heated exchange between two students, the conflict could get escalated if the parents decide that they need to get involved. Some parents would do so too.

Another issue is the issue of the child's growth. Mr. Rubenstein's plan calls for cameras in classrooms for parental observation up through the 12th grade. Meaning that they could watch their child until they are 18 years old. While there are internet cameras in college classrooms, the purpose of this is purely educational. It is extremely uncommon for parents or administrators in college to interfere with a professor's class. But back to the matter at hand. Parental observation through one's Senior Year in high school. One of the purposes of school IMO is to help children to individuate from their parents. For starters, children act differently in schools than they do at home with their parents. It isn't suprising for many of us adults act differently with friends than we do with our families or at work. It could make a child self-conscious if a parent starts questioning how we act with our friends. It's part of growing up. Also, it is more likely that parents who already have a propensity to get too involved would just horn in even more, especially when it comes to teacher related conflicts or peer related conflicts that don't require parental involvement. One could argue that cameras will force bullies to act better. The thing about most bullies is that they either have parents that don't care and won't get engaged anyways, or they have parents that believe that they can do no wrong. The truth is, it might curb bullying, but it doesn't solve the problem of bullying. Ultimately, having cameras in classrooms will not teach kids a sense of ethics. Instead of learning not to do something because it is wrong, children will learn not to do something because they fear getting caught. But they will only fear it where they can get caught. Developing a sense of ethics is very important in growth and maturity and I fear that it is missing from the equation here.

Furthermore, security questions are not absurd, but they are a very major concern. Mr. Rubenstein says in his article on the subject:

"The argument that internet based classroom cameras could lead to security problems is absurd. In fact, they may have a huge positive impact on classroom discipline, on the ability to immediately spot and intruder or the beginning of any act of violence. By creating parents and administrators as observers, parents and administrators may be able to spot a situation that is likely to become violent, alert security guards and prevent violence from occurring."

Well, one thing to consider with regards to security issues is that this footage will be on the internet. There are probably enough pedophiles in any given metro area who happen to be computer hackers as well. After a few days of observing camera footage from various cameras, they could pick out their easiest target(s) and abduct them when they get off schoo grounds. And even if they make it onto school grounds and decide to nab the child there, the cameras could prevent or solve a problem of child abduction, they still caused the problem. Honestly, I find Mr. Rubenstein's remark here to be ill thought out. You cannot dismiss possible security concerns like this as absurd. Yes, the scenarios I mentioned are hypothetical, but so are his. When examining the potential benefits of internet cameras in classrooms, one must consider the pitfalls.

The larger question is: Are security cameras in classrooms big brother? Let's see what Mr. Rubenstein thinks:

"This is pure nonsense. The Super Bowl is shown to billions of people around the world, live. No one has ever accused the National Football League of using big brother tactics to show the world a football game."

My problem with this remark is that one cannot compare a football game, especially the Super Bowl to viewing a classroom. Football is a form of entertainment. The players and the NFL get paid to have teams play and to have these games broadcast. The more viewers they have, the more money they make. The students and teachers are not going to get paid to be the subjects of surveillance. Will teachers get a pay raise for it? I doubt it very much. A question I have regarding the idea of cameras in classrooms that this article doesn't answer is how long a recorded day of school will be somewhere on the internet before it is deleted for all eternity? If it is there for a long time, the prospect becomes very scary. Think if a child or teacher having a really bad day and that day is caught "on tape" so to speak on the internet. People can look through that day and use the info against the child or teacher months or even years later. Many people say not to let the negative instances in your life define you. That is very hard to do when other people can go look over your bad day. Your parents, your freinds, your peers, your bosses. People will judge you on it and in my opinion, that is the very essence of big brother. Now, while this particular question is not addressed in the article and this situation is once again hypothetical, I cannot prove that it is big brother, but Herb Rubenstein has not proven that it isn't.

To view Herb Rubenstein's article on cameras in classrooms, click here:
http://growth-strategies.com/subpages/articles/027.html


All this being said, I would wholeheartedly agree that parents should be very involved with their child's education. Not in a way that would damage the students or the teachers. An idea that I have is to record a day of school every so often. Say once a month at most. It can be a thing that teachers and students become active and willing participants in. A video letter to the parents saying "Hey Parents, this is what your children are doing in school right now" that can be put on a DVD-R and mailed to the parents of the students. It will keep the children protected from internet predators, minimize misunderstandings and conflict, allow the students to grow on their own a little, yet still keep parents involved in the education of their children. It is also a less obtrusive idea than having every day of school recorded.