Foster Dickson's Blog, page 98

The Need for Progressive Heuristics

Ever since I encountered the idea of heuristics, I’ve been fascinated by their power and influence. It’s all about creating the shortcuts that allow people not to have to think out the whole process every time. Make it easy on ‘em and they’ll come with you. That’s why I was really interested in this Salon.com interview with George Lakoff titled “This is why conservatives win.”

Why do so many people cling to political beliefs that are out-of-touch with their own self-interest? Because heuristics were offered, and they gladly “got the memo.” Some brief form of the party’s agenda was organized, summarized and packaged in such a way that it was acceptable to and digestible by ordinary people, allowing these voters not to spend hours and days and weeks studying political theory and public policy so they could make truly informed choices in multiple races.

The lead-in to the Salon.com interview proffers a briefing on three of George Lakoff’s books, published in 1980, 1996 and 2004. We learn about “Lakoff’s goal of educating the progressive community to stop shooting itself in the foot and start living up to its full potential.” It’s all about strengthening the message and giving in an accessible way, something Lakoff says conservatives are doing really well.

Why can’t progressives change the ossified politics of the Deep South? The linguistic shortcuts aren’t there. What Lakoff calls the “conceptual metaphors” aren’t there. The “framing” isn’t there. And I don’t see a long-range plan to put them in place. So “Christian,” “conservative,” “family values,” anti-federal government and pro-gun constitute the “framing” that moves people to action. Progressive candidates have no clear-cut set of terms to match those. And in my opinion, until Deep Southern progressives develop the terms, and entrench them – as Lakoff says, they’ve got to embrace cognitive science –  they will keep losing elections.

Filed under: Civil Rights, Social Justice, The Deep South

A writer-editor-teacher’s quote of the week #43

“. . . So fate requires

That all things whirl to ruin, slip behind,

Like one who rows his skiff against the current,

Touch and go: if once his arms ease off,

The current sweeps him headlong down the stream.”

— from Virgil’s Georgics, Book I, translated by Smith Palmer Bovie

Filed under: Gardening, Literature, Poetry, Reading, Teaching, Writing and Editing

Montgomery’s recycling center

I’ve written about this issue of recycling in Montgomery before, in May of this year and in July of last year. Since its inception, news about Montgomery’s new all-in recycling center have been sparse, so I was glad to see this story, “Talking Trash: A look inside Montgomery’s new recycling facility,” on our local NBC affiliate WSFA earlier in the week. For all of the bad news we hear about government programs not working or being mismanaged, this program appears to be going very well.

 

Filed under: Alabama, Local Issues, The Environment

The Pitiful Options for the Modern Voter

About two weeks ago, an op-ed titled “The Worst Voter Turnout in 72 Years” ran in the New York Times. I found it when trying to figure out if other Deep Southern states had the same pitifully low voter turnout that we had in Alabama (41%), and it seems that they did. Nationally, turnout was 36%. I don’t have the time or the space to explain fully why such low voter turnout bothers me, but I will share a little bit.

First of all, a current fad politicians among politicians has them calling all election results a “mandate,” a supposedly clear and obvious indication that the victorious candidate’s platform is endorsed fully by the people. For example, on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday morning, November 16, Louisiana’s governor Bobby Jindal made the claim that this month’s Republican victories were clear proof that Americans prefer their ideas to Obama’s. That can’t be true when only one-third to one-half of voters show up to vote. To be more thorough and honest about the election results, if a candidate wins with 60% of the vote in an election with 36% turnout, then that candidate only received the support of about one-in-five registered voters. That isn’t a “mandate.” That equation really means that, out of every five voters, about one voted for you, about one voted against you, and the other three didn’t think you or your opponent were worthy of changing their daily routine.

The only clear conclusion we can draw from this month’s elections is that 64% of America’s registered voters didn’t show up. Well, why not? My guess, which is shared by many pundits, is that people are so fed up with modern politics – divisive, angry, unproductive, uncooperative – that voting for any candidate seems an absurd act. Lower voter turnout seems, to me, to be a clear indication of one thing: the disgust of the American people with politics and politicians— the very ones who don’t intend to change.

Today, our either-or choice is “pro-business” Republicans who say no to everything except war and laissez-faire economics, or “big government” Democrats whose go-to public policy solution is creating another program that will add to our national debt (because Republicans will say no to new taxes). Not much of a choice for someone like me who believes in income equality and fiscal responsibility and helping the poor and disadvantaged.

Additionally, low voter turnout confuses me because, at least where I live, patriotism doesn’t seem to be waning in the same way. We still wave our flags and support our troops and say our “pledge of allegiance” and repeat the mantra that “freedom isn’t free.” But American democracy needs for us to vote, which many Americans seem to be neglecting . . .

Honestly, I understand it when voter turnout hovers at 70% – 80%. It’s realistic that two or three people out of ten will be too busy to go vote on that day, and that others will be out of town and neglect doing an absentee ballot. Adults have a range of responsibilities from working (sometimes two) jobs to kids’ extracurriculars to caring for elderly parents. That’s life. But to have two of every three voters not come . . . that’s either apathy or frustration.

Is there any hope? Maybe. As a part of his Democracy Day idea, US senator Bernie Sanders has proposed a bill that would make voting day a national holiday. I agree wholeheartedly. If we can take other national holidays for our patriotism – July 4th, Veterans Day, Memorial Day – then voting day should be a part of that ideal. Not surprisingly, at least one voice from the political right-wing (the National Review) says no. (For a response to their response, here is MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow commenting on her blog.)

Low voter turnout should be a resounding message to the upper echelons of our polity that Americans are fed up. But they won’t get it, or at least they won’t admit that they get it. They’re too busy trying to win the rhetorical battles that define their careers, while the rest of have to live with their results of their overweening pride.

I wish I had any idea how to solve this dilemma. My best idea is for ordinary Americans to write to political party leaders and tell them that we’re tired of either-or choices, especially when both choices are undesirable. But if Americans aren’t going take the time to vote, they certainly aren’t going to take the time to do that either.

My final say is: if we want to honor the sacrifices made by veterans of World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the veterans of domestic “wars” like labor struggles and the Civil Rights movement, then we have to vote. People have fought and died, both at home and abroad, so we get to vote. It’s only right to go do it.

Filed under: Civil Rights, Education, Local Issues, Social Justice, The Deep South, The Environment

“How Schools Kill Creativity”

In the TED talk, “How Schools Kill Creativity,” Sir Ken Robinson points out the inherent flaws in the drudgery of modern educational methods that discourage independent thinking, dissuade active learning, and bind up some highly intelligent children with wrongheaded one-size-fits-all careerism. I won’t spoil the talk by telling you what he says – do watch it for yourself – but I was proud of his example of how arts education transformed the life of one person, who went on to transform many lives herself.

The notion that educational “rigor” thwarts the development of exceptional students isn’t new. We could go back through the histories and biographies and find examples of great people who railed against the authorities at school and then transcended all expectations. (Think of John Lennon, or of Pink Floyd’s “The Wall.”) Do we really want to suppress those kinds of people with our new, proud emphasis on a “rigor” whose only stated goal is the acquisition of job skills?

Filed under: Education, Teaching

A writer-editor-teacher’s quote of the week #41

Writing about her experiences judging a major fiction contest, Diana Wagman had this to tell us about the book that won:

“But the writing is elegant and deceptively simple. The characters are complex and their problems are very modern, set against an old-fashioned world that is believably portrayed. There are beautiful, poetic descriptions and gritty, terse paragraphs. [ . . .] In the end it was about voice. It was about distinction— a story that could only be told in that way, with that character, in that combination of style and craft.”

– from “Confessions of a Literary Judge” by Diana Wagman, published in Poets & Writers, November/December 2003

Filed under: Literature, Reading, Teaching, Writing and Editing

“The Juncture of Verisimilitude and Me”

Over the years, like many writers, I’ve had my share of works that never found a home in a magazine or journal.  So, rather than lamenting that fact and assuming that no one will ever read them, I’ve begun sharing some of them in my “Unpublished” series on this blog. This one is the first essay I’m sharing. (A few poems have already been posted over the last few months.)

This first unpublished essay, The Juncture of Verisimilitude and Me, was originally written for the Teachers & Writers Collaborative’s Bechtel Prize competition. The essay didn’t win, and it will probably never appear in an education journal because its basis isn’t data-driven, which is the current vogue in that field. (I’ve had writing-education articles rejected for that reason alone, so I know.) In it, I address the subject of providing a liberal education to young people through the mechanisms of reading and writing.

 

Filed under: Education, Social Justice, Teaching, Unpublished Works, Writing and Editing

Stay Outta My Business!

Maybe it has been going on all along, but I’ve noticed more celebrity-authored books lately. I browse the New York Times book review section each week, and recently one week’s issue has a book by Bruce Springsteen . . . and another week’s issue features a book by Bob Odenkirk. Not too long ago there was a review of James Franco’s poetry book.

Dammit!  As though these guys need publicity! 

It’s hard enough to earn a living as a writer without having to compete with famous people who are dabbling in the literary arts for a moment. No one I know makes a living from the royalties on our books. We teach, give lectures, write grants, ghost write, do freelance work, all while trying to get some of our own writing done. But still, we have to compete for sales with rock stars, comedians and movie stars— who, frankly, make more money on one album, tour or movie than I will make in my life.

Get out of the book business! Say what you have to say in your own medium.

While I’m spouting off my frustrations, I may as well add this one: for quite a few weeks, books by Duck Dynasty‘s Sy Robertson and Phil Robertson were topping the nonfiction bestseller lists! So it’s not enough to get wealthy on your duck calls, your DVDs, and your TV show— you’ve got put your gimmicky caricatures into print and take book sales away from legitimate authors, too . . .

Many good books by hard-working, competent writers – some of which win major or minor prizes – will get neglected because some curious reader will shell out that twenty bucks to see what James Franco’s poetry is like or what weird crap Uncle Sy will say next. While good books and authors go unnoticed, a chain bookseller, a New York publisher and a major media personality will snap up that money and attention. Meanwhile, a book that discusses an important theme or topic will collect dust, be returned to Ingram, then remaindered by the publisher . . .

The whole thing gets under my skin.

Filed under: Literature, Poetry, Reading, Writing and Editing

“In the Arts” at the MMFA

On Thursday, November 13, I will be one of several artists, writers, etc. discussing career options in the arts at the Montgomery Museum of Fine Arts. The event, “In the Arts,” is open to the public but is designed for teenagers. Students can come to meet and talk to people who are making a living in the arts, so that they can have a better understanding of their own goals and potential.

Filed under: Alabama, Author Appearances, Literature, Local Issues, Published Books, Teaching, Writing and Editing

Vote Pro-Public Education

Despite campaign claims from conservative candidates, no one in the state of Alabama can argue with the introductory sentence to this article on al.com:

A new study reveals that, since 2008, Alabama has made the second deepest cuts to per-pupil funding for K-12 students in the nation.

Although the writer, Madison Underwood, refers to a “new study,” this news isn’t new, nor should it be shocking.  Since fiscal year 2008, the state of Alabama has cut K-12 education spending by 17.8%.

I’ve been teaching since the 2003-2004 school year, well before the recession of 2008 and 2009, before the Republican takeover of the Alabama’s state legislature in 2010, and before these cuts. The years since 2008 then have been a blur of mounting problems for teachers: staff reductions and attrition, take-home pay cuts due to increases in healthcare and retirement premiums, reduced supply funding to accompany increased class sizes, and the best efforts at support during hard times have come in the form of being told to “do more with less.”

Since 2010, Alabama’s state legislature has not only cut budgets; they have also diminished our job security, made it harder for our union to collect dues, eliminated the DROP program, and bragged about legislation that gives public funds to private schools. If funding cuts weren’t enough, these blatant attacks on public schools and their employees should make it clear what the deal is.

Tomorrow, on November 4, millions of hard-working Alabamians have a chance to remove and replace the people who have been cutting public schools. If we don’t take that chance, we will get four more years of the same thing. And four years from now, there’s no telling what that 17.8% will jump to. Please vote pro-public education next week!

The only other thing I can say is: God bless the children of Oklahoma, the only state with cuts more severe than ours. Their education budgets have been cut 23.6% since 2008. I don’t know how they’ve managed . . . but if we get the same crowd back in office, I may get to find out.

Filed under: Alabama, Local Issues, Social Justice, Teaching