Speakout is Truthout's treasure chest for bloggy, quirky, personally reflective, or especially activism-focused pieces. Speakout articles represent the perspectives of their authors, and not those of Truthout.
As consumers get ready for the new iPhone 6 coming out this month, the continuous race of technology companies trying to outdo one another continues. Some, techies are already predicting what Apple is holding back for the iPhone 6s version. Yet, with all this bombardment of new devices with smaller chips, faster processors, and fancier and clearer screens, we tend to overlook the true cost of what goes in to make these devices possible.
The role of technology saturating our everyday lives is the new norm and every six months or so we hear of a new device, app, system, platform, or idea that will help make our lives a little better. It's true that technology has made the world more convenient for lots of people. Our instant connection with people half a world away and ease with which apps help us decide where to eat, how to look up obscure movie names, and get our job done quicker, have all been little breakthroughs that everyone can appreciate. But we never stop to think of how the devices we carry around are produced and made, or what kind of factory conditions the people putting it together work in. We use these devices for a while and exchange them for new ones at the hint of the latest edition.
When it comes to educational attainment socioeconomic and racial inequality has always existed in America. That is the truth. And that fact alone was justification for the writing of federal education law in 1965 that attempted to rectify the problem with a two-pronged approach. However, desegregation - a forced attempt to offer equal access -overshadowed full implementation of the law. But equal access alone was never enough; the American standard is one of quality.
So in 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education openly questioned the quality of our public schools and made the call that we were A Nation at Risk based on eleven "indicators." The majority of those measures, which set the stage for gauging our excellence, were standardized test scores.
I am your product. You made me. So reminds erstwhile charismatic African National Congress' (ANC) youth-wing leader and current South African Member of Parliament and now Economic Freedom Fighter's (EFF) political party Chief, Julius Malema.
Since his divorce with the ANC and its leader and South African president, Jacob Zuma, Malema has not given up on what he knows best: politics. Politics that offered Malema a good life, connections, a position and the political podium, afore South African society. However, a good life does not always guarantee succeeding at every encounter, political or otherwise. Malema's traditional strong connections did suffer some contraction of sorts, while he, at the same time, managed to expand other ties. While some of his links have faltered, others have risen, most notably with(in) the proletariat of South Africa.
It is all over the news that the NFL has a problem, as a number of players were indicted for domestic violence or are under investigation for that. The problem the commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, is having relates to the public relations and money, not domestic violence specifically. When league sponsors began to make statements and withdraw support for the NFL, then Goodell stepped up to actually act like he cared and do something about the crimes his players were committing. It took his concern for money for him to take more appropriate action, not facing the issue of criminal violence committed by his players.
At his press conference on 9/19/14 the media took their job seriously enough to actually confront the commissioner with difficult questions. I am gratified by that because the media often do not care about domestic violence or violence against women perpetrated by football players. Consider what happened in Steubenville Ohio in March of 2013 when two football players were found guilty of raping a sixteen-year old girl. The media reacted with empathy for the rapists - not the girl they victimized. The boys who raped her were proud of what they did and put it out on social media. They believed they would not be held accountable and they would be protected - because they were football players. Where does that belief come from? Do our NFL players and even the commissioner believe they will be able to get away with that behavior because there is no one to hold them accountable? Our society tends to idealize football players and men in the military and those men count on that to protect them from their worst actions.
“Women want a men’s movement. We are literally dying for it."
It’s way past time to put on the pads, guys. We’ve got to put our shoulders to the wheel of change if we’re going to stop domestic and sexual violence. Are you ready to suit up for the big game? Except, of course, it ain’t no game; the lives of our daughters and sisters, wives and mothers are on the line.
Pres. Obama's speech on dealing with ISIL -- the violent Islamic movement in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere -- was front page news around the US. Newspaper headlines quoted Obama’s assertion that “we will degrade, and ultimately destroy ISIL.” Now Congress is backing him.
Pres. Obama’s military focus echoes our nation’s accustomed response in numerous situations deemed threatening: from the coups we engineered in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, the Vietnam War, to Nicaragua in the 80s, and war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That few experts consider any of these violent responses “successful” should encourage skepticism regarding a new campaign that is almost entirely military focused.
Syracuse, NY - Carrying flowers and three documents to Hancock Field Air National Guard Base can result in severe consequences. Drone resister Mark Colville of the Amistad Catholic Worker, New Haven, Connecticut, was found guilty after a two-day trial and fifty minutes of deliberation by a DeWitt Town Court jury.
On December 9th, 2013, Colville and two Yale Divinity students brought a People's Order of Protection to the front gate of the base to demand an end to drone attacks which are carried out from Hancock. This action was in response to a recent request by Raz Mohammad, an Afghan national, whose brother-in law was killed by a U.S. military drone strike. Gate personnel rejected the petition.
There’s a scene in the movie The Internship that really hits home for me. It's when Vince Vaughn’s character (middle aged) is anxiously studying tech terms for the following day’s big Google challenge when the undercover head of talent acquisition (who pretends to be a nerdy, anti-social intern) gives him a pep talk to ease his fear of failure. He tells Vince that he has an amazing way with people and is expert at the fine art of building relationships. In contrast, he says, most young people (like himself) can hardly maintain a conversation without texting. In an age when a young person bursts out in tears for being pulled off the line at an Apple store the day they launch iPhone 6 or when progressive educators advocate for 1:1 Learning Environments (which puts a laptop front and center in the learning process), I have to ask: what impact will this new age techno philosophy have on future generations?
In 2003 when I decided to become a pioneer in a new on-line educational leadership Ph.D. program (designed for the most part for military officials who lived in the field), I was ecstatic to find I could engage in learning and independent research from the comforts of my own home; not to mention connect with others who lived hundreds of miles away and obtain a doctoral degree while still raising two small children without having to hire a nanny. The benefits were enormous back then but upon completion of the degree and reentering the real academic world of my peers, I realized I had lost the opportunity to establish critical partnerships with those in my field that later translates into contacts. The traditional social network in academia leads to jobs, further research and ultimately the much needed “social currency” for anyone who wants to teach at the university.
An untold story of our congressional system is the lucrative cottage industry of “political intelligence consultants.” These are lobbyists and Wall Street operatives who roam the halls of Congress and executive agencies trolling for inside information affecting the marketplace to sell to those looking to manipulate the stock market.
This enterprise is dubbed the “political intelligence industry,” consisting of some 2,000 political intelligence consultants soaking up information from government sources and selling it to clients to the tune of anywhere between $100 million and $400 million annually, although the amount is a very rough estimate.