Target Goes for "Tarjae" Status ON Thanksgiving

Is Target looking for a "Tarjae" amount of money to bring them into ‘the black’ this holiday season...before the infamous "Black Friday" even starts? Either they got really confused with Daylight Savings Time this year and set their clocks 3 hours ahead or they deliberately chose to get a head start on the money making by opening their stores on Thanksgiving evening at 9 PM. Years ago many retailers moved their opening time to midnight...technically Friday, but this most recent change has resulted in over 200,000 names on a petition. The petition was written by a young employee who wrote to the corporate office asking this, “Target: Take the high road and save Thanksgiving."

Check out the full story here:

http://www.chron.com/life/article/Target-employee-starts-online-petition-to-keep-4033317.php

In all fairness, Target is not the only retailer that decided to use this technique this year. Other holiday-snatching companies include Wal-Mart and Sears who are opting for an even earlier open, 8 PM. Now, similar petitions for the other stores are also going viral. This story reminds the public of an interesting way to engage in discourse; petitions are an often useful method to show disapproval of an action. In this case, Target responded to their employee by informing her that she will not be punished for her action (i.e. creating the petition) and offered her the evening off on Thanksgiving. She respectfully declined with the reason that it would not be fair to her fellow team members. The petition was enough to catch the attention of the corporate office, but not enough to change the time of opening on Thanksgiving.

Will this story affect how you use your Red Card? 

"Don't you dare say the "D" word or the "F" word!"

If you work in Higher Education...your vocabulary has got to change. And no...we are not referring to curse words.

The "D" Word: As a college student, I commonly referred to where I lived as my "D-O-R-M" and now I have learned to erase that word from my vocabulary. The word that has taken its place is the much more proper, "Residence Hall". While I understand the reasoning behind the switch, I cannot help but wonder if this really has any effect on the students.

Check out this explanation from Vladosta State University http://services.valdosta.edu/housing/Dormvs.ResidenceHall.aspx

While I understand the explanation -- I question the research, or lack thereof...

The "F" Word: When I first started college, I was a "F-R-E-S-H-M-A-N" and now that word too has been eliminated from my vocabulary and replaced with "First-Year". Again, I understand the reasoning, but I question the true effect that this has on students. All our previous presidents were referred to as "freshman" and this did not lead to negative self-fulfilling prophecies.

I wonder if we get too caught up in the "political correctness" of words and lose sight of the bigger picture -- does this really affect our students... because that is what we are here for...right?

"Granito"...Why the Filmmakers want it Bootlegged?

"We sold the movie to the biggest bootlegger there is in Guatemala...because we WANT people to see it"
--Pamela Yates

When the filmmakers are encouraging their own documentary to be bootlegged -- you know they are not in it for the money, but they are in it for the spreading of a message. "Granito: How to Nail a Dictator" is a documentary that was almost accidental. The first film that Pamela Yates made on Guatemala was called, When the Mountains Tremble. Essentially this documentary provided the outtakes that would eventually become the necessary "grain of sand" to "tip the scales of justice" for indicting a human rights villain. The villain, Dictator Efraín Rios Montt, knowingly ordered genocide on the indigenous people of Guatemala despite his adamant denial.

After watching the documentary, I could not help but be stunned at the courage of the filmmakers, particularly Pamela Yates. She put her life on the line for years in hopes of exposing an injustice and working towards change. Without the bravery of leaders like her, our world would be a very stagnant place. Progress is simple not automatic or instantaneous. We all have someone to thank for the freedoms that we enjoy today and for this we have to do our part for those who still lack the basic human rights. Films like this opens our eyes to a world that is not filled with free education, homes, and SUVs -- in fact, if you have any of the above you are more fortunate than the majority of the world. Injustice exists and we need to look it straight in the eye…just as these filmmakers concentrated on the head of the “nail” that eventually led to decades of overdue justice for a dictator.

Planning the Perfect Election Watch Party

Appetizers...check
Beverages...check
Clean house...check
TV ready...check
Guests invited...um...WHO?

For someone who has never hosted nor attended an Election Watch Party, I cannot help but wonder all the goes into the process. While I understand the proper hosting etiquette...the only BIG question I have for this type of party is...WHO DO YOU INVITE?

For instance, say you identify as a Moderate...do you invite your extreme liberal and conservative friends to the same party? Say you are very conservative; do you only invite only your friends and colleagues that will reinforce your values? Or, do you invite your liberal friends in hopes that you can put a "W" in their face?

Maybe it is like having a Bears vs. Packers party...except just a whole lot more personal. This party may have two different "teams" you’re rooting for, but you’re not just voting for the team that you grew up watching...you are rooting for the candidate that shares your ideologies.

So, if I had to choose my guest list now, I would say I would choose a variety of perspectives and then I would get my largest knife sharpened...just in case I would have to cut the tension in the room.

Until Tuesday...Happy Election Party Planning!

The Danger of Protecting the "Endangered Species"

"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places."  -- Warren Buffet

Just as the mega-rich enjoy having political friends (i.e. the decreasing tax rates) -- I think the more advantageous friendship is the reversal. Some may say the relationship is symbiotic, but it my opinion -- there is an aspect of commensalism. For instance, it seems as though the politicians benefit more so from "having friends in high places", whereas the rich are not deeply affected by the relationship. While some politicians were essentially born wealthy...others depend on the wealthy to support their campaigns, projects, and ideologies. While the extremely wealthy make up only about 1% of the population (hence Occupy’s slogan -- 'We are the 99%'), they seemingly control the opposite. When a small group of individuals control such a large portion of our world's wealth-- they, in turn, control a similar amount in terms of power. In reality, the whole relationship is unhealthy and dangerous. It reinforces the ideal that money can be used to buy power. As politicians treat the mega-rich as "endangered species" -- they are doing so to protect their motives from going extinct. Let's put an end to the protection of the "endangered species" not to cause harm to the rich, but to challenge our politicians in a way where they are forced to make decisions based upon morality and values and not on 'saving face'.

Higher Education...Where is the debate?

In effortless terms, the current debate argues this....

Public Primary Education = Much Worse
Private Primary Education = Much Better

Public Secondary Education =Much Worse
Private Secondary Education = Much Better

Public Higher Education =?
Private Higher Education =?
For-profit Higher Education = Basically EVIL

So, while this trivial outline looks at this debate in the most simple of terms -- does it hold any truth? Are the messages that we are receiving leading to simplified labeling -- are these labels generally true or does it depend on location and tax bracket? The vast majority of time spent debating public vs. private is found in the primary and secondary levels, but what do people say about the institutions of higher education? Do they say "it depends on the school". Is the fact that students feel like they have more control over choosing their institution take the heated discussion off such institutions. But wait...what about those For Profit institutions of Higher Ed, oh -- that's right, they’re basically evil -- so we hear.

Are these for-profit schools taking all the heat away from the private vs. public discussion? Such institutions are accused of taking advantage of specific audiences; veterans will GI bills, single parents, and those coming from low income homes. Why do such businesses seek out these audiences -- because they assume that they are "easy targets". There are different types of accreditation, regional and national. While being "nationally-accredited" may sound more prestigious, it is quite the opposite. Schools that have regional accreditation also go by the names of Duke, Yale, and Harvard. While the accreditation debate is one that is on the forefront -- can this be something that is applied to primary and secondary schools. Accreditation is a process that evaluates all aspects of an institution -- in lieu of test scores. Are higher education institutions on to something, or will it just reinforce competition with winners and losers among primary and secondary education schools? Or, will accreditation continue to emphasize third-parties in the marketplace, such as those that grant national accreditation. The real concern in my opinion is viewing education as a business, for now, that is probably where the debate will stay.

One Puzzle Piece doesn't FIT for ALL

Bad schools. Bad teachers. Bad students. Really, the finger-pointing could go on forever -- but is this getting us anywhere? As mentioned in CJ's blog, http://cjhmls590.blogspot.com/2012/10/is-education-really-priority-response.html, the two presidential canidates have spent an unbelievable amount on finger-pointing in this presidential race and what has this accomplished. As Guggenheim honestly reflects in "The Making of Waiting for "Superman","You've found a great school for your kids--but is that enough? You've pulled your kids from the system and turned your back on the problem. Your kids will be okay, but what about other people's children?" In my opinion, this final question should be ringing in everyone's ears, especially those in a position to make policy changes. But, to take this idea further -- I don't think this question of other people's children should only be limited to education...

All across the country and around the world, the basic needs of children are not being met. If we use Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, we realize EVERY CHILD WILL BE LEFT BEHIND if they do not have their basic needs fufilled. They cannot advance to the highest stage of self-actualization without proper nutrition, sleep, and feeling safe. In my opinion, maybe the question of the "Great Divergence" is really the area for concern.

Sure, a Benet Academy for all sounds ideal, but this is a suburban perspective. Would this sort of school work in the inner cities or in the rural areas...only people that live in those areas would know.  Just like standardized tests are criticized for being written by wealthy whites for wealthy whites; wouldn't putting a "Benet Academy" in place of every public school also be reinforcing the "white man's ideal". Before we go about assuming that we know what is best for everyone; let's first get a diverse group of people together to find out what the children's real needs are and not what we assume them to be. Only then, can we work towards a solution that is not a “ONE PUZZLE PIECE FOR ALL” -- our needs are much more diverse than that.

Is Common Sense really Sensible?

What is a good teacher...a bad teacher...we have all claimed it sometime in our life, so it must be easy to define, or is it?  So often, we depend on common sense to steer our thoughts, actions, and arguments -- but as @alyssagaudio says http://mls590leadership.blogspot.com/2012/10/bad-teacher-bad-common-sense.html, "more research needs to be put into defining the problem". One problem that is brought up in Bad Teacher is "professional preparation", or lack thereof. Specifically, the institution of higher education is criticized for being hypocrites. While professors are advocating for more intensive "teacher" training -- they, themselves teach without needing any specific training in the area of teaching. In actuality, a negative correlation exists; as the level of education increases, you will find a decrease in the requirements for "professional preparation".

Example: Illinois
Primary Education = Major in Elementary Education
Secondary Education = Major in subject, minor in Secondary Education
Higher Education = Be considered an "expert" in the field, no teaching qualifications necessary

While common sense tells me that I am comfortable with this set-up due to developmental differences in students who range in age from 5 to 22 -- I can't help but wonder if our "common sense" is failing us. Is higher education contributing to a vicious cycle? Aspiring teachers spend time in both major and non-major courses where they encounter professors with potentially no "professional preparation", in terms of teaching. So, it is okay to assume a person's credentials in a field automatically make them qualified to teach the future teachers how to teach. Was the field of teaching necessarily created, and if so, why are we not embodying its very essence in institutions of higher education...That's right, because it is HIGHER education and we are above that?!

Six Degrees of Separation...?

"It is a small world" is a statement that we may hear on a daily basis, but this cliché seems to be one that is growing in truth with the passing of time. Due to technology, social media, and overall globalization -- our world is becoming more and more connected and thus "smaller" in a metaphorical sense. Middle-eastern countries that use to seem so mystical and out of this world now seem to be in the center of international debate. A day does not go by that we do not hear about some tragedy or misfortune in the middle-east. This is not to say that only tragedy and misfortune exist, but it seems to be all we hear about.

A recent tragedy that hit home was the shooting of the 14 year old Pakistani girl who was known for her work on women's rights, specifically in regards to education. In this case, the "six degrees of separation" rule was shortened to two...

Through my work, I have the opportunity to meet people from around the world, particularly students from underserved and underrepresented areas. With that, I work very closely with three men from Pakistan who are all here studying in areas that will enable them to return home and implement systems of education. In particular, one student has a strong interest in women's educational rights. At first, I was a little intrigued by his interest in this subject, but after talking to him and hearing where he comes from I can better understand. In fact, he comes from a village so close to the 14 year old Pakistani girl, that he actually knows her. He came in to the office once the news broke and he was obviously affected emotionally. He too has horror stories of the Taliban as he and his family were displaced for a prolonged period of time.  Something tells me too that something happened to spark his interest in the need for implementing women's education. Please take a moment to read the following story about the young girl and as I read...I appreciated my very right to blog freely.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/taliban-says-it-shot-infidel-pakistani-teen-for-advocating-girls-rights/2012/10/09/29715632-1214-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story_1.html

"My Muslim Faith"

Many of us may remember the story around Barack Obama's slip on national television when he said, "My Muslim faith"...in case you don't, watch it here.

As I read Deepa Kumar's book, I could not help remember the hype around this story and the sense of 'Ismamophobia' in so many people. In reflecting, it seems like a simple human error; he looked like he was formulating his previous thought before he finished his current one. He defends this slip in religious identification by claiming this is what the McCain campaign would say. I cannot help but wonder if the same defense would have been necessary if he would have said, "My Jewish faith". With that aside, what I find most interesting about this story is people's obsession what he "dare didn't say" and later on how he chose to defend himself. (Below)

“Let’s make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance [to the American flag] and lead the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes in the United States Senate when I’m presiding,”

While I think it was entirely appropriate to clear up his religious identification as a Christian to defend his slip of tongue, what I think demonstrates Kumar's claim of Islamophobia is in the latter part of his quote. Did he need to go as far to say that he pledges allegiance to the American flag. For the people in our country that have this fear  (i.e. Islamophobia)-- he probably did, but isn't he only reinforcing the negative connotation around the world Muslim by doing so. For instance, there is no Muslim that would also pledge allegiance to the flag. The final question is... If it was any other religion that he said, would the 'story' have been so big? Unfortunately, Islamophobia "shines" once again as the headliner.

"That is EXACTLY what I was thinking...right?"!

In response to the first presidential debate, I could not help from critiquing both candidates throughout -- not so much on substance, but on delivery. I was thinking Mitt Romney really came prepared with information and poise and the president came across less articulate than I have seen him in the past. I had these thoughts, but literally seconds after the debate concluded there were commentaries supporting what I thought I was thinking. I think I went from personally thinking that Romney did well, to seconds later knowing that he definitely "won" the debate. As I reflect on this in real time, I see how I can be easily persuaded by the media and their commentaries. Granted, I did think Romney's performance was more polished, but I now sit here thinking that the presidential race just got a bit tighter. I almost wished I would have paused the commentary to allow myself the couple minutes I needed to formulate my opinion through reflection -- something that I will definitely do next time so I am not left asking myself..."That is EXACTLY what I was thinking, right?!

#FirstWorldProblems...Internet & Democracy

In response to "The Daily We" by Cass Sunstein -- I could not help but think that this was a very ethnocentric perspective on the effect the Internet is having on democracy. Sunstein was concerned with individuals limiting the public sphere by streamlining their information. In all honestly, this sounds like a #FirstWorldProblem. Let us stop and think about the countries that do not have the resources to even share ideas due to a lack of infrastruture. According to this 2011 article, 70% of the world does not even have access to Internet. http://news.yahoo.com/disconnected-70-percent-world-doesnt-internet-despite-rising-201836035.html. It does not seem entirely coincidental that the countries that are recognized for their democracy fit into the 30% of the world that has Internet access.

Then, let us take this idea a step further and consider the countries where "black holes" exist in regards to government censorship. In these cases, the use of the Internet is prohibited because they are afraid of the very thing that Sunstein warns us of losing...the public sphere. The governments are looking to slow the growth and exchange of ideas and the best way they know how to do that is through Internet censorship. Honestly, this seems like a counter-intuitive claim when we look at this idea with a global perspective. Movements for democracy and justice such as Kony 2012 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Ue6REkeTA) would not be feasible without the use of the Internet. There is no other way to spread ideas and raise awareness globally more efficiently than the Internet. All in all, the Internet and free use of it has become a hallmark of democracy, not lack thereof.

Face to Face...A response to Islamophobia

After having the privilege of listening to the profound ideas of Deepa Kumar, I could not help but replay a few of her quotes in my head. In particular, it was this statement in reference to Islamophobia, "Face to face contact breaks it" that really resonated with me. Currently, I work with a group of 12 international students at the College of DuPage. They are actually all studying and living in the United States on a grant funded by the U.S. State Department. Some people may be bothered to learn this information considering the current situation of many American citizens. With that, I realize that the mission of the state department in choosing 'underserved and underrepresented' from countries like Pakistan, Egypt, and India is very strategic on both ends. It comes down to forming relationships by breaking borders, misconceptions, and stereotypes. When we speak of "them" in a very distant sense, we are forgetting their humanity -- a key point that was made by Kumar. In my situation, I have seen the discussions between people from very different backgrounds and I have seen the progress that has been made. While, it is obvious that there are subjects where people have to 'agree to disagree', I am constantly reminded of the importance of intercultural education and building relationships with people who may be very different. All in all, I have seen the incalculable benefits of 'face to face' contact in humanizing others' ideas, beliefs, and values.

The Weatherman Metaphor

There is one person in nearly everyone's life that we have learned to forgive. In Chicago, they have names like Tom, Amy, and Bill. We will listen to what they have to say every morning and even adjust our wardrobe to match their advice. We enjoy the excitement they can bring of a developing snow storm and we can easily forgive as class remains far from canceled. While we hope for accuracy, we do not ever let ourselves expect it. The truth is, we know that their guess it better than ours...which is exactly the same mentality we have towards the public intellectuals in our lives. Public Intellectuals, while often wrong, are more than often forgiven. Public Intellectuals, like Meteorologists, have more credentials and expertise on a subject matter, which is why it is difficult to cut them out of our lives.  If we did, we would just be left with our lonely thoughts to form opinions on subjects far outside our knowledge base. When they are wrong, we assume that their inside knowledge led them to a certain decision and from there their mistake is justified and forgiven.  Who are we as everyday consumers of the public sphere to judge those that we idolize for their knowledge, credentials, and talents? We chose to forgive because we know we would also want to be forgiven. So, when asked, "Who are the public intellectuals of 2012" they are the Toms, the Amys, and the Bills. They are the people who simply have an expertise on a subject matter that we lack. And yes, we forgive, because what other choice do we have?

The Contemporary Public Sphere: Settling for Simplicity

"From organs of public opinion to agents of propaganda" -- a strong accusation of today's news media. The question that thus follows is a blaming game. Are we, as the people, responsible for demanding otherwise or do we have yet no other choice? As consumers, we may have the right to fight the major media conglomerates, but the real question is, "do we have the power?" In my opinion, the true trouble with public discourse or lack thereof, is simple naivety and/or ignorance. If we are not provided with information outside "our Naperville bubble" -- how do we begin to know the challenging questions to ask, unless we make a conscious effort to seek it out otherwise? We operate in a time-driven world where we need news that is quick, to the point, and purely simple. Some of us -- many of us, do not have the time or make the time to ask the really difficult questions that exist in the world. The questions of diminishing resources, war, starvation, and genocide may be the subjects that need the most attention, but lack presence. And yes, this is of concern. As human beings, how do we justify having more interest in a celebrity's latest break-up versus the undeniable existence of global warming. It seems as if we strive for simplicity and focusing our attention on issues that are easier to cope with. People already complain, "there is no good news", but imagine if we were talking about the real issues that face our world. In order for progress to occur, public discourse must exist. Claiming naivety can only worsen the problems with the passing of time. As one can see, I am concerned for the fate of public life until the media starts challenging us to think about the bigger issues or until we start demanding those in the media to talk about the true issues. A vicious cycle will continue until someone stops settling for simplicity. The world will not progress without adding a dimension of complexity and asking others to expand their minds in search of solutions.