"AOL's 'youth filters' protect kids from Democrats" by Brian Livingston

This article basically is a review of AOL’s “youth filters” which were designed by AOL in an attempt to protect youth from viewing sites on the internet that are considered to be inappropriate. The article basically lists of several discrepancies that make this youth filtering software slightly unstable and may result in parents being misled. For example, conservative party sites are viewable with the software turned on, while liberal sites are often blocked as a result of being inappropriate. I found this article quite interesting. In the first place, I don’t necessarily know if the filters that AOL currently uses are the same as the ones that they used in 2002 when the article was written; however, I do believe that there are still issues that are similar to these in current software packages that target online safety for children. I am sure that AOL has definitely developed a better system by which to screen sites that are appropriate for children viewers. The system that they used in the article was a “whitelist” that included sites that have been deemed appropriate for children. In compiling our web-site for social context my partner and I had the opportunity to look into several such “kid-filters” and found that the amount of products out there is quite overwhelming. Although I am sure that they have improved over the years, many of the issues that are present in this article are still taking place today. It is not necessarily a deliberate ploy by the company to ensure that youth follow a conservative government; however, as a result of human/computer error, there are bound to be issues that arise. I believe that this entire issue needs to be approached differently. As opposed to relying heavily on software to keep your children safe online, ensure that you are teaching them proper safety at home and school. I agree with a comment in the article that stated how software such as AOL’s youth filtering is really eliminating the scope of experience that kids have access to. I would be quite upset if I had a child who was unable to see differing political viewpoints as a result of a glitchy piece of software. I believe that we must educate kids on sites that are inappropriate and other online safety issues. No matter how technologically advanced our society comes there will always be “glitches” and other issues that will bring about negative consequences and possibly this increase in safety will come at the cost of broadening our youths horizons.

"The No-Book Report: Skim It and Weep" by Linton Weeks

This Washington Post article is basically defining the word aliteracy. Weeks and others are basically saying that there is a huge amount of individuals who are becoming aliterate. This is not to be confused with illiterate. Aliteracy is basically an individual who knows how to read, but he simply chooses not to. The article goes through various examples and statistical information relevant to the amount of individuals who simply choose not to read. Weeks also confronts various issues related to the reasons that people don't read. He talks about the long lasting battle with "time". I agree with Weeks when he says that those who say they don't read because they lack time to read are simply not placing any priority on reading. They have time to watch 2 hours of TV a night, but not time to read? This doesn't make sense to me. I myself struggle with reading for pleasure. I honestly do enjoy reading; however I feel that in the past several years I have not had a healthy balance of reading (between textbooks and books that I simply want to read for pleasure). This is of course a personal fault and cannot be blamed on "time" or the fact that I simply don't want to read. I really like the point that Weeks makes in saying that we live in a highly visual world and we would much rather read bullets than blocks of text. How true this is! We would much rather have a professor send us the powerpoint notes than have us read the chapters in the book. After reading this article, I will be making a much more amibtious approach to reading for enjoyement. I feel that I have lost touch with reading, and the enjoyment that this has brought me in the past. I hope this will act as a wake-up call for me.

"Media Violence Debates"

I really enjoyed reading this article. Basically it is the debate over whether or not media violence is entirely bad, or whether or not there are some positive aspects that can come out of violent entertainment. This article was similar to “Why kids need violent entertainment”. I really enjoyed the following quote; “Children need violent entertainment in order to explore the inescapable feelings that they’ve been taught to deny, and to reintegrate those feelings into a more whole, more complex , more resilient selfhood.” I can’t say that I ENTIRELY agree with the fact that there is little harm or foul that comes from extremely grotesque and violent media; however, I do still believe that there are certain aspects of violent entertainment that allows children to get in touch with these elements of violence that, let’s face it, are much more safely experimented with in a video game and other media than they are in real life. The author also touches on the racial connotations of certain media; portraying the “bad guy” as poor, young, male members of visible minorities. I think that if anything needs to be looked into, this would be something that should be considered as harmful as violence in the media. I believe that these images strengthen racism and inequality. Perhaps we are not focusing on the right issue; although violent entertainment does have its downfalls, there are other issues in the media that we should be considering to be more frightening. It ended by saying that it really is upto what we do with the media that we consume. "rather than focusing on what media do to people, we should focus on what people do with media". I thought this was an excellent way to wrap up the article, as we truly do need to focus on how we deal with media. Is it the medias fault for making money off of us because we refuse to be critical about this media? I would argue no.

"Black People Love Us"

This article confused the heck out of me! I seriously was really trying to find what they were even trying to prove by designing this site. Basically the site is about a white couple who feel compelled to design a site around the fact that they have social ties with black people. I just don't even understand what is going on. The site has a way of showing off some of the stereotypical differences between white and black people. I don't know if this is entirely good. One particular letter stated "you're singling out black people as somehow being different enough that it's strange for whites to befriend them. That as far as I'm concerned is a form of racism." I must say, I do agree with this to a degree. I think that this is not only offensive to black culture but also to white. I understand that the authors clearly want to simply get a reaction; which judging by their letters they definitely do get their fare share; however, I am not sure what relevance that this has to anything other than humor. Karlheinz got it right in saying that it satirizes stereotypical white behavior just as much as stereotypical black behavior. They basically are making fun of the situations that some individuals may still feel when it comes to the blending of cultures in a social setting. I must say, I really don't know how to feel about this website. I can only say that I am entirely confused by what it is trying to achieve besides being humorous. I mean really, lets face it, there are a whole pile of people making money off of being comedic about stereotypical behavior. Perhaps these authors are simply trying to get a few laughs.

"One CEO's View of Computers" by AUTHOR UNKNOWN

This article made me laugh. The author seems to be the type of person who really doesn’t like the way that we are moving in terms of technology. He talks about how technology has really only added to the stress and work that he has to go through in order to get an answer. He gives a witty example at the end of the article that shows how a set of questions that the computer asks you, simply will not replace being able to get the information from a secretary or from a paper file. Often times our questions are not correctly answered as a result of the fact that the computer runs in code, and lacks the cognitive problem solving that we, as humans, all have. He feels that although we are moving towards a world of technology, we possibly should understand some of the risks and negatives associated with these technologies. He talks about how the computer, although commonly felt to be much better than “paper” is in fact have negative aspects as it is “down” all of the time. The author states that the software and hardware manufacturers purposefully blame any problems on the fact that you don’t have the upgrade; your solution will be solved if you would get the up to date software. I agree with him in many respects, especially with his thoughts on new methods of communication. He goes through the advances from snail mail to faxes to voicemail and email. I believe that sometimes we are depending on these technologically advanced methods of communication too much. I receive a great deal of emails (for work) in which the client could have easily answered the question himself if he would have simply thought about the question rather than emailing me. Email is never used as a last resorts to get an answer, it seems to be the exact opposite. Because of these issues, effectively integrating technology has and will continue to have negative characteristics.

"Wash the Glasses First" by John Willcox Herbert

The article "Wash the Glasses First" falls in line with the question that many students have about much of the subject matter taught. This questions is "why do I need to know this?". Herbert explains how, although he learned many things through his k-12 education, he still feels that there should be a class called "Important Stuff 101" in which real life skills are taught (i.e. how to tie a tie, how to ignore advertising etc etc etc). I loved this short article. It really applied to me, as much of what I learned in high school was simply a means by which to assess my cognitive ability. These things that were deeply pushed and stressed in school are not things that I am going to apply throughout my life (will I apply concepts learned about the Irish potato famine in my everyday life?), they were simply a means by which to place me into a category of below average, average or above average. I think that the public school system is striving to put in place practices that touch on these real life skills. I still am forced to question whether or not the core classes are preparing our students for the real world. Should we focus more on possibly teaching them real life skills such as ways to communicate, ways to shop, ways to stay out of debt, ways to resolve conflict, or should these concepts continue to be an element of the hidden curriculum. I don't think that we will ever see a complete move away from the "core" subjects of learning. We as teachers will always be presented with the question of "why does this stuff even matter?" We as teachers do, however, have an obligation to teach our students other life skills through the core curriculum and other curriculum. Although we may never have classes set up, such as "Important Stuff 101" it is our job to teach this "important stuff" through the other core curriculum.

"Engaging Absence With Dialogue" by Ron Sheese

I must admit, when reading through this article the first time I was terribly bored; however, when I gave it a second read, it really seemed to make much more sense to me. Basically, what the author is saying is that as opposed to blaming student absence on different reasons, teachers should be encouraged to look at the REAL meaning of why students are absent. The author recommends looking at various factors to determine whether certain elements, such as fear of making an error or gender bias, contribute to absenteeism. He states that this will help us understand the TRUE meaning of why students are absent, as opposed to some common misconceptions such as assuming that absence is based around ignorance, laziness or stupidity. The author then goes on to explain the concept of “meaning space”. What I have come to understand about meaning space is that it is a set of beliefs or traits that you determine “what really matters” to you. The author believes that by looking at the discrepancies between meaning spaces, we may be able to more accurately define why our students find the class meaningless and do not want to attend. For example, some, as a result of their meaning space, may find group work to be an opportunity to collaborate with others while some may feel it is simply a method by which to socialize; others may even find this type of work meaningless. The author also stresses the importance of conveying a course objective EARLY and ACCURATELY in order to explain to the students what is actually expected of them. This will allow students to avoid enrolling in classes which do not fit in their “meaning space”. This will surely reduce absenteeism. I agree with much that the author said regarding “engaging absence with dialogue”. This class (social context), along with other classes in which open discussion is encouraged, definitely help to touch on many different contributors to absence. By engaging in open dialogue through the use of our blogs we are able to convey what we feel to be important; and in turn, open ourselves up to the comments of others in order to promote an environment of sharing and learning.