Friday, November 07, 2003
Hey all!
Great observations. Let's see if I can respond and complicate matters or pehaps even clarify?
A good citizen would be someone who does whatever it is that might promote the greater good of his society whenever he feels it necessary. If action is required, he will take it. This includes voting, helping with a campaign, volunteering, running for office, or even something as common as raising a family that will appreciate their own citizenship.
I agree with this in theory, but suppose that I think my stealing (say like Robin Hood, from the rich to give to the poor) is the action that's required. Also, while I might agree with this position in theory, in practice, is this really what happens? Or put another way, if we wanted this to work in practice, are there things we might do to help it happen?
Another observation~~In his futuristic world, one can not become a citizen until they have served in the military, and they cannot have children unless they are a citizen. An interesting idea on both points, but especially the first part as it applies to our discussion. Where can we draw the line at the obligations for being a citizen?
Could we map out minimal obligations and maximum obligations? Minimal seems to be voting? And what is maxmimum? What happens, as is the case now, when folks don't engage in the minimum? Is this something that should be enforced? Penalized? Or is action to be encouraged in some systematic way?
And the last~~
guess you could also think of it as an effort to further the quality of your government so that's in some way superior to others.
Hmm. I hadn't thought of it this way. It's not a competitive model, is it? Does citizenship working well in one country mean it's not working well in others? Also, citizenship and nationality: that's interesting, and that was another point made in the last blog. Nationality seems exclusive, citizenship to me could be inclusive. Is that a goal worth striving for? What would it look like?
These are great questions, and I look forward to more! ;)
ky
Great observations. Let's see if I can respond and complicate matters or pehaps even clarify?
A good citizen would be someone who does whatever it is that might promote the greater good of his society whenever he feels it necessary. If action is required, he will take it. This includes voting, helping with a campaign, volunteering, running for office, or even something as common as raising a family that will appreciate their own citizenship.
I agree with this in theory, but suppose that I think my stealing (say like Robin Hood, from the rich to give to the poor) is the action that's required. Also, while I might agree with this position in theory, in practice, is this really what happens? Or put another way, if we wanted this to work in practice, are there things we might do to help it happen?
Another observation~~In his futuristic world, one can not become a citizen until they have served in the military, and they cannot have children unless they are a citizen. An interesting idea on both points, but especially the first part as it applies to our discussion. Where can we draw the line at the obligations for being a citizen?
Could we map out minimal obligations and maximum obligations? Minimal seems to be voting? And what is maxmimum? What happens, as is the case now, when folks don't engage in the minimum? Is this something that should be enforced? Penalized? Or is action to be encouraged in some systematic way?
And the last~~
guess you could also think of it as an effort to further the quality of your government so that's in some way superior to others.
Hmm. I hadn't thought of it this way. It's not a competitive model, is it? Does citizenship working well in one country mean it's not working well in others? Also, citizenship and nationality: that's interesting, and that was another point made in the last blog. Nationality seems exclusive, citizenship to me could be inclusive. Is that a goal worth striving for? What would it look like?
These are great questions, and I look forward to more! ;)
ky
Thursday, November 06, 2003
I'd say that all this good citizen jibe would be action directed towards improving the overall condition of that entity we call our nation. I tend to have rather strange views on nationality, so to me that obligation calls for as much citizenship as is necessary to ensure the roads get paved every now and then, but i know most people's opinions on that will differ. I think the standard agreed measurement for a decent degree of citizenshiping would be simply to put in more than you take out. With this "productive member of society" viewpoint, everyone under the umbrella of your particular government are at least to some extent benefiting from your presence on this planet, which i guess is some attempt at justification, or at least ensuring you're not annoyed by your nieghbor. I guess you could also think of it as an effort to further the quality of your government so that's in some way superior to others. With that mindset, i think everyone just shifts back into the attitudes of the WWII era.
~tripp
~tripp
This question was very difficult for me to answer. In a utopian society, I believe it would be one who put his country's best interests ahead of everything else. I also began to say that one who does what he can for his country, as far as he is able, is a good citizen, but I kept coming up with contradictions. What about children, or the mentally handicapped? Are they not citizens as well? Either the definition of a citizen must be more inclusive, or America has just gone overboard with its ideas of citizenship. I agree with Kelly that it is no standard against which this trait can be measured. However, on a similar note, when we were having this discussion in class I was reminded of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie). In his futuristic world, one can not become a citizen until they have served in the military, and they cannot have children unless they are a citizen. An interesting idea on both points, but especially the first part as it applies to our discussion. Where can we draw the line at the obligations for being a citizen?
In regards to good citizenship, I'm not sure it's something that can be put on a scale or measured (as in the amount of work and how often). To have a scale, there has to be a standard by which to measure. I don't think there is anyone in this world, much less this country, that can claim to be a perfect citizen that would represent the top of the scale. Everything is relative so a scale cannot be applied. As far as the amount of time required to be a good citizen or the amount of action that is required -- well, that just seems to be missing the point. One is not a good citrizen because he does this and he does that. A good citizen would be someone who does whatever it is that might promote the greater good of his society whenever he feels it necessary. If action is required, he will take it. This includes voting, helping with a campaign, volunteering, running for office, or even something as common as raising a family that will appreciate their own citizenship.
Anyway, that's about it for me -- Hope everyone has a great weekend!
Anyway, that's about it for me -- Hope everyone has a great weekend!
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
It's working! (So uncool to show how happy one is to do something cool. Oh well . . . ) [Do you think this medium invites something less formal?]
You all did say in your writings that you think citizenship, good citizenship, requires ACTION. Can you talk about what kinds of action you think contribute? Is it on a scale, with smaller actions being less important--say voting rather than working for a candidate? Is the action needed all the time, or is it periodic? How much action is needed?
What do you all think?
You all did say in your writings that you think citizenship, good citizenship, requires ACTION. Can you talk about what kinds of action you think contribute? Is it on a scale, with smaller actions being less important--say voting rather than working for a candidate? Is the action needed all the time, or is it periodic? How much action is needed?
What do you all think?
Hey all~~
Forgive my delay in getting back to you. Now let me see if this actually gets to you.
katheen
Forgive my delay in getting back to you. Now let me see if this actually gets to you.
katheen
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
King County Council
Commentary
More Patriot Act Ammendments
Senate Weighs Patriot Act
Ammendments Offered
These articles bring up the controversy centered around this bill. In addition some of these articles are discussed in an unbiased way in that they describe the pros and cons of the PA. One article even brings up the fact that authorities can go into your home download information off your computer and not notify you of these action for weeks or months. This would be a very successful topic to bring up and capture the audience's attention.
Curtis, Matt, and Robert
Commentary
More Patriot Act Ammendments
Senate Weighs Patriot Act
Ammendments Offered
These articles bring up the controversy centered around this bill. In addition some of these articles are discussed in an unbiased way in that they describe the pros and cons of the PA. One article even brings up the fact that authorities can go into your home download information off your computer and not notify you of these action for weeks or months. This would be a very successful topic to bring up and capture the audience's attention.
Curtis, Matt, and Robert
Sunday, November 02, 2003
Objectivity
There seems to be a feeling that by presenting facts from both sides of a story we have accomplished objectivity in our endeavor. However, facts are fickle and it requires a considerable quantity of naivety to suppose any given work comprised solely of facts can be advertised as possessing a purely objective nature. On isle 6 in Winn Dixie, the sign informing passers-by that tuna is 60 cents off its regular price stands as a glowing testament to this assertion.
When presenting a scientific research paper, the name of the game is generally convincing someone somewhere that they should actually care that diynylarenes polymerize catalytically, that fullerenes can be synthesized in gram quantities, that whatever. To do this, you only have the passive voice, dry facts, and pretty diagrams to accomplish your ohsoverysubjective objective. If you’ve never tried it, it’s a blast.
It’s been pointed out repeatedly in class that for our project we’re informing an unbiased (ie, uncaring) public about unarbitrarily selected goings on in the political realm. Furthermore, not only are we attempting to inform about these events, but we are also presenting our findings with the hope that the audience will vote, and vote with intelligence at that. The first part of our objective implies that our topics are of some importance, just like diynylarenes and cheap tuna. The second implies that the audience should act on the information in a way pleasing to us. A purely objective work could care less about these events, or how people vote, or even if they vote at all.
I think the trick here is noting that after looking over many facts, you can use the inescapable subjective nature you possess to form opinions more informed and intelligent than one would have otherwise, for I would much rather trust myself to the judgment of an informed and biased source than an ignorant but impartial one.
~tripp
There seems to be a feeling that by presenting facts from both sides of a story we have accomplished objectivity in our endeavor. However, facts are fickle and it requires a considerable quantity of naivety to suppose any given work comprised solely of facts can be advertised as possessing a purely objective nature. On isle 6 in Winn Dixie, the sign informing passers-by that tuna is 60 cents off its regular price stands as a glowing testament to this assertion.
When presenting a scientific research paper, the name of the game is generally convincing someone somewhere that they should actually care that diynylarenes polymerize catalytically, that fullerenes can be synthesized in gram quantities, that whatever. To do this, you only have the passive voice, dry facts, and pretty diagrams to accomplish your ohsoverysubjective objective. If you’ve never tried it, it’s a blast.
It’s been pointed out repeatedly in class that for our project we’re informing an unbiased (ie, uncaring) public about unarbitrarily selected goings on in the political realm. Furthermore, not only are we attempting to inform about these events, but we are also presenting our findings with the hope that the audience will vote, and vote with intelligence at that. The first part of our objective implies that our topics are of some importance, just like diynylarenes and cheap tuna. The second implies that the audience should act on the information in a way pleasing to us. A purely objective work could care less about these events, or how people vote, or even if they vote at all.
I think the trick here is noting that after looking over many facts, you can use the inescapable subjective nature you possess to form opinions more informed and intelligent than one would have otherwise, for I would much rather trust myself to the judgment of an informed and biased source than an ignorant but impartial one.
~tripp
